M  IDSalbone  '^.  ©raham  | 


yoi. 


^  //o7£/  acquired Price,  $. \»4. 

PLEASE  READ,  UEMEMBER   AND   RETURN.  ^ 


GIFT  OF 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/christianityagnoOOwacerich 


CHRISTIANITY 
AND     AGNOSTICISM 


REVIEWS   OF  SOME  RECENT  ATTACKS 
ON  THE  CHRISTIAN  FAITH    - 


BY 


HENRY    WAGE     D.D. 
\\ 

PREBENDARY   OF  ST  PAUL'S      PRINCIPAL   OF   KING'S   COLLFGE,    LONDON 

PREACHER    OF   LINCOLN'S    INN      CHAPLAIN    IN    ORDINARY    TO    THE   QUERN 

CHAPLAIN   TO   THE   ARCHBISHOP   OF   CXNTERBURY 


NEW     YORK 
THOMAS     WHITTAKER 

EDINBURGH    AND    LONDON 

WILLIAM    BLACKWOOD    AND    SONS 

MDCCCXCV. 


'  All  Rights  reserved 


\A)  3 


.V 


^i. 


..':'.  : 


PEEFACE. 


The  leading  Essays  in  this  volume  arose  from 
a  paper  on  Agnosticism,  which,  at  the  urgent 
request  of  an  old  friend,  I  read  before  the 
Church  Congress  at  Manchester  in  1888.  It 
was  attacked  by  Professor  Huxley,  in  an  article 
published  in  the  'Nineteenth  Century'  for 
February  1889,  in  a  manner  which  obliged  me 
to  reply.  He  published  a  rejoinder,  to  which 
I  replied  again ;  and  the  controversy  was  con- 
cluded in  a  third  article  by  him,  as  the  editor 
could  not  allow  it  to  be  prolonged.  I  should 
have  been  satisfied  to  let  it  rest,  as  the  main 
points  for  which  I  had  contended  seemed  to 
me  sufficiently  established  by  the  Professor's 
own  admissions ;  but  as  he  has  reprinted  his 
articles  in  a  more  lasting  form, — first,  in  a 
volume  entitled  '  Essays  on  Controverted  Ques- 
tions,'  and  lately   in  the  edition   of  his  works 

371550 


VI  PREFACE. 


collected  in  the  Eversley  Series,  —  it  seems 
only  due  to  the  cause  I  represented,  as  well 
as  to  myself,  to  reprint  my  own  arguments  in 
a  form  accessible  to  the  general  reader.  This 
seems  the  more  requisite,  because  the  Professor 
did  not  feel  himself  able,  in  his  own  volumes, 
to  reprint  any  of  the  arguments  to  which  he 
was  replying ;  although  "  there  is,"  he  acknow- 
ledged, in  his  preface  to  '  Controverted  Ques- 
tions,' "  an  air  of  unfairness  about  the  presenta- 
tion of  only  one  side  of  a  discussion."  In  the 
present  reprint  of  my  own  articles,  I  have  en- 
deavoured, on  my  part,  to  obviate  any  such 
unfairness,  as  far  as  possible,  by  giving  in  the 
notes  the  passages  from  Professor  Huxley's 
articles  to  which  my  arguments  refer.  The 
reader,  I  hope,  will  thus  find  the  case  at  issue 
placed  fairly  before  him. 

My  articles  in  this  controversy  are  supported 
by  some  essays  which  I  had  previously  contri- 
buted to  the  '  Quarterly  Eeview.'  The  Pro- 
fessor warned  his  readers,  with  a  magisterial 
authority,  "  against  any  reliance  upon  Dr  Wace's 
statements  as  to  the  results  arrived  at  by  mod- 
ern criticism,"  and  it  is  desirable  that  the  reader 
should  have  some  means  of  judging  of  the  jus- 
tice of  this  impeachment  of  my  credibility  re- 
specting such  matters  of  fact.     Such   evidence 


PREFACE.  Vll 

he  will  find  in  these  articles  from  the  '  Quar- 
terly,' especially  in  the  first,  on  ''The  Histori- 
cal Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,"  in  which 
an  account  was  given,  two  years  before  the 
present  controversy,  of  the  statements  of  Dr 
Holtzmann,  to  whom  Professor  Huxley  himself 
appeals,  respecting  the  results  of  German  criti- 
cism of  the  New  Testament.  An  earlier  article, 
in  the  Appendix,  on  *'  The  Speaker's  Commen- 
tary," affords  some  further  information  on  the 
same  subject. 

To  these  articles,  which  I  hope  will  furnish 
the  reader  with  sufficient  materials  for  a  review 
of  this  particular  controversy,  are  added  an 
article  on  the  late  Mr  Cotter  Morison's  attack 
on  Christianity  in  his  volume  entitled  '  The  Ser- 
vice of  Man,'  and  another  on  '  Robert  Elsmere,' 
both  published  in  the  '  Quarterly  Review.'  Each 
of  these  reviews  deals  with  some  important  points 
in  the  current  controversy  with  Agnosticism, 
and  may  therefore  serve  to  supplement  the 
arguments  in  the  other  papers. 

It  may  be  proper  for  me  to  add  some  obser- 
vations on  a  wider  aspect  of  the  question,  in- 
volved in  the  contrast  continually  urged  by 
Agnostics  between  the  results  and  the  methods 
of  Science  and  Faith.  It  is  not,  indeed,  neces- 
sary to  dwell  on  any  supposed  discrepancy  be- 


VIU  PREFACE. 

tween  results  in  these  two  spheres  of  human 
thought.  Any  difficulties  found  in  this  respect, 
however  important  and  interesting  at  a  given 
moment,  can  never  be  other  than  temporary. 
Sooner  or  later,  on  any  point  of  detail,  the  truth 
is  ascertained,  and  assertions  on  either  side  in- 
consistent with  the  truth  are  as  a  matter  of 
course  given  up.  I  say,  on  either  side;  for 
Science  has  had  its  errors  as  well  as  Theology, 
and  has  certainly,  in  the  course  of  centuries, 
had  to  surrender  not  less  deeply  -  rooted  pre- 
judices than  those  by  which  theologians  have 
sometimes  been  held  in  fetters.  Such  discrep- 
ancies in  detail  may  be  said  to  settle  them- 
selves if  people  will  only  have  patience,  and 
will  make  sure  of  their  facts  before  troubling 
themselves  with  alleged  divergencies  and  possible 
reconciliations.  In  his  essay,  for  example,  on 
'The  Lights  of  the  Church  and  the  Light  of 
Science,'  reprinted  in  '  Science  and  Hebrew 
Tradition,'  Professor  Huxley  alleges  that  the 
Deluge,  as  described  in  the  book  of  Genesis, 
is  a  physical  impossibility;  that  the  story  "is 
merely  a  Bowdlerised  version  of  one  of  the 
oldest  pieces  of  purely  fictitious  literature  ex- 
tant" (p.  229);  and  that  "at  the  present  time 
it  is  difficult  to  persuade  serious  scientific  in- 
quirers to  occupy  themselves,  in  any  way,  with 


PREFACE.  IX 

the  Noachian  Deluge."  Yet  Sir  William  Daw- 
son, who,  not  only  as  a  Fellow  of  the  Koyal 
Society,  but  as  not  long  ago  President  of  the 
British  Association  for  the  Advancement  of 
Science,  must,  I  suppose,  be  regarded  as  a  seri- 
ous scientific  inquirer,  in  his  interesting  work  on 
*  Modern  Science  in  Bible  Lands,'  published  only 
two  years  previously,  says  that  "it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  point  out  the  remarkable  agreements  of 
the  Bible  and  observation  with  respect  to  the 
deluge,  or  the  light  which  they  mutually  cast 
on  each  other  "  (p.  220) ;  and  he  further  observes 
(p.  218)  that  there  are  indications  of  the  narra- 
tive proceeding  "from  an  eye-witness,  or  one 
who  represents  himself  as  such."  Whereas, 
moreover.  Professor  Huxley,  in  'Science  and 
Hebrew  Tradition,'  labours  in  essay  after  essay 
to  show  that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is 
inconsistent  with  the  revelations  of  geological 
science.  Sir  William  Dawson,  in  the  '  Expositor ' 
for  February  of  this  year  (p.  119),  says  of  that 
chapter  that  "we  have  here  a  consistent  scheme 
of  the  development  of  the  solar  system,  and 
especially  of  the  earth,  agreeing  in  the  main  with 
the  results  of  modern  astronomy  and  geology. 
It  would  not  be  easy,"  he  adds,  "  even  now  to 
construct  a  statement  of  the  development  of  the 
world  in  popular  terms  so  concise  and  so  accur- 


X  PREFACE. 

ate."  No  doubt  Fellows  of  the  Koyal  Society 
will  some  day  be  in  substantial  agreement  on 
the  matters  of  fact  which  thus  divide  these 
two  distinguished  members  of  their  body ;  but 
until  they  are,  it  cannot  at  all  events  be 
alleged  that  the  established  results  of  Science 
exhibit  any  discrepancies  with  the  narrative 
of  Genesis. 

The  history,  in  fact,  of  the  past  ought  to  con- 
vince us  that  difficulties  in  detail  of  this  kind 
need  cause  no  one  any  anxiety  ;  but  the  question 
of  the  comparative  validity  of  those  two  mental 
processes  which  are  understood  by  the  general 
titles  of  Faith  and  Science  requires  careful  atten- 
tion. There  is  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  a  cer- 
tain circle  of  scientific  men,  and  of  some  philos- 
ophers, to  represent  scientific  methods  as  entirely 
distinct  from  those  by  which  our  religious  beliefs 
are  formed,  and  as  the  sole  methods  on  which  we 
are  justified  in  forming  any  beliefs  at  all.  This 
is  the  contention  of  that  form  of  Agnosticism 
which  Professor  Huxley  defends ;  and  in  his 
first  essay  in  the  present  controversy,  reprinted 
in  *  Science  and  Christian  Tradition'  (p.  310),  he 
thus  states  his  meaning  :  "  Speaking  for  myself," 
he  writes,  "  .  .  .  I  say  that  Agnosticism  is 
not  properly  described  as  a  '  negative '  creed, 
nor  indeed  as  a  creed  of  any  kind,  except  in  so 


PREFACE.  XI 

far  as  it  expresses  absolute  faith  in  the  validity 
of  a  principle,  which  is  as  much  ethical  as  intel- 
lectual. This  principle  may  be  stated  in  various 
ways,  but  they  all  amount  to  this  :  that  it  is 
wrong  for  a  man  to  say  that  he  is  certain  of  the 
objective  truth  of  any  proposition  unless  he  can 
produce  evidence  which  logically  justifies  the 
certainty.  This  is  what  Agnosticism  asserts, 
and,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  all  that  is  essential  to 
Agnosticism.  That  which  Agnostics  deny  and 
repudiate,  as  immoral,  is  the  contrary  doctrine, 
that  there  are  propositions  which  men  ought  to 
believe,  without  logical  and  satisfactory  evi- 
dence ;  and  that  reprobation  ought  to  attach  to 
the  profession  of  disbelief  in  such  inadequately 
supported  propositions." 

Now  such  a  statement  raises  an  issue  respect- 
ing the  grounds  of  belief,  which  is  independent 
of  the  particular  creeds  or  propositions  which 
may  be  at  any  time  in  question  ;  and  it  is  simply 
necessary  to  inquire  whether  the  principle  laid 
down  by  Professor  Huxley  is  either  true,  or 
adapted  to  the  facts  and  necessities  of  human 
life.  Such  an  inquiry  will,  I  think,  show  that, 
in  principle,  the  foundations  of  faith  have  very 
much  in  common  with  the  foundations  of  science, 
and  that  very  similar  impulses  to  those  by  which 
science  is  promoted  and  maintained  have  been 


Xll  PREFACE. 

operative,  and  are  operative  still,  in  the  main- 
tenance and  production  of  faith. 

Let  us  imagine,  for  the  sake  of  illustration,  a 
philosopher  from  some  other  planet,  endued  with 
superhuman  powers  of  observation,  to  visit  this 
earth,  and  to  take  a  survey  of  the  condition  of  the 
whole  human  race.  He  would  observe,  as  one  of 
the  first  and  most  impressive  facts,  that  men  were 
for  the  most  part  collected  into  vast  groups,  all  of 
whom  were  governed  in  their  daily  life,  and  gen- 
eral principles  of  conduct  and  action,  by  similar 
habits  and  principles.  He  would  notice  the 
facts  which  we  describe  as  the  existence  of  vari- 
ous forms  of  civilisation.  He  would  observe  the 
whole  of  Europe  and  of  America  governed,  in 
the  main,  by  certain  moral  and  religious  prin- 
ciples which  give  them  a  distinct  unity.  He 
would  observe  that  Asia,  from  the  shores  of  the 
^gean  to  a  great  part  of  India,  was  under  the 
supremacy  of  a  wholly  different  civilisation,  with 
distinct  principles  of  family  life,  of  social  man- 
ners, and  of  moral  and  religious  habits.  In 
great  part  of  India,  however,  he  would  find 
another  system  of  civilisation  supreme,  and  in 
the  forms  of  Brahmanism  and  Buddhism  he 
would  notice  compact  worlds  of  human  life,  with 
sympathies,  principles,  and  interests  peculiar  to 
themselves.     Let  him  pass  the  Himalayas,  and 


PREFACE.  Xlll 

he  finds  himself  in  a  new  civilisation,  that  of 
China,  in  which  the  largest  empire  in  the  world 
is  held  together  on  principles  of  duty,  and  of 
social  organisation,  distinct  from  either  of  the 
others.  These  various  civilisations  are  from 
time  to  time  coming  into  conflict  with  one 
another ;  and  their  collisions — their  collisions  as 
masses,  and  not  merely  those  of  particular  nations 
— have  occasioned  the  most  momentous  events 
in  the  world's  history.  By  each  of  these  civilisa- 
tions, as  a  whole,  the  fate  of  individuals  is  deter- 
mined. According  as  a  man  finds  himself  born 
into  one  of  them,  or  into  another,  the  whole 
course  of  his  thought,  feeling,  and  action,  except 
in  rare  instances,  will  be  determined.  The  ex- 
istence, in  fact,  of  these  civilisations  is  the  first 
and  most  momentous  phenomenon  in  human 
life,  as  that  life  would  be  presented  to  the  eye 
of  such  a  superhuman  observer  as  I  am  supposing. 
Having  thus  observed  the  fact,  he  would  pro- 
ceed to  inquire  into  its  cause  ;  and  of  this  there 
can  practically  be  no  doubt.  At  the  root  of 
each  of  these  civilisations  are  religious  or  philo- 
sophical principles,  which  have  been  accepted  by 
the  great  mass  of  men  in  faith  or  trust.  There 
are,  at  all  events,  great  regions  of  conviction, 
within  all  those  spheres  of  life,  which  have  not 
been  determined  by  purely  scientific  reasons,  and 


XIV  PREFACE. 

cannot  be  supported  by  anything  that  could  be 
described  as  "  logically  satisfactory  evidence." 
Men  have,  so  to  say,  reached  out  from  what 
they  could  see  or  prove ;  and  relying  mainly 
on  the  authority  of  great  leaders  like  Moham- 
med, Buddha,  or  Confucius,  they  live  and  die 
for  beliefs  which  they  could  never  demon- 
strate. Here,  then,  is  a  phenomenon  of  human 
nature,  exhibited  on  the  largest  possible  scale, 
and  it  must  be  taken  therefore  to  represent 
a  law  of  that  nature  —  a  principle  of  action 
which  men  in  general  instinctively  adopt.  Is  it 
probable  that  any  such  principle  is  radically  un- 
justifiable ?  It  is  no  presumption  against  it  that 
its  results  have  been  hitherto  so  imperfect,  and 
in  most  cases  erroneous,  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  it  tends  to  increasing  error,  and  that  it  has 
not,  on  the  whole,  had  a  beneficial  tendency. 
Keason  and  Science  themselves  have  produced 
and  maintained  erroneous  results ;  but  we  trust 
them  none  the  less,  in  the  assurance  that  their 
patient  and  continued  employment  has  cor- 
rected, and  will  further  correct,  such  errors. 
Faith,  in  the  same  way,  has  produced  false 
religions ;  but  if  it  has  also  produced  a  true 
one,  its  continued  exercise  is  likely  to  be  the 
natural  means  of  spreading  that  true  religion, 
and  dispersing  the  false  ones.     At  all  events,  in 


PREFACE.  XV 

the  spectacle  we  have  been  contemplating,  we 
behold  in  action  a  stupendous  force — certainly 
the  most  powerful  motive  force  which  human 
history  exhibits ;  and  it  would  seem  inconsistent 
with  all  principles  of  prudence  and  common-sense 
that  it  should  simply  be  denounced  as  illegiti- 
mate, and  not  less  inconsistent  with  due  respect 
to  human  nature  that  it  should  be  denounced 
as  "  immoral."  What  the  philosopher  is  called 
upon  to  do  is  to  analyse  it,  to  examine  its 
capacities,  and  thus  to  assist  in  using  it  aright. 
The  wise  course  to  pursue  with  any  general 
instinct  of  nature  is  to  bring  it  into  order  and 
under  control,  not  to  suppress  it  because  it  is 
powerful  and  dangerous. 

Now,  Professor  Huxley  himself  tells  us  that 
there  is  one  grand  exception  to  his  rule  of 
making  certain  of  nothing  for  which  we  cannot 
adduce  logical  and  satisfactory  evidence,  and  it 
is  remarkable  that  this  exception  forms  the  basis 
of  the  whole  superstructure  of  Science.  "  It  is 
quite  true,"  he  said,  in  his  first  article  in  this 
controversy,  "  that  the  ground  of  every  one  of 
our  actions,  and  the  validity  of  all  our  reason- 
ings, rest  upon  the  great  act  of  faith,  which  leads 
us  to  take  the  experience  of  the  past  as  a  safe 
guide  in  our  dealings  with  the  present  and  the 


XVI  PREFACE. 

future."  ^  I  should  have  thought  the  act  of  faith 
in  question  consisted  rather  in  taking  the  ex- 
perience of  the  present  as  a  safe  guide  in  our 
dealings  with  the  past  and  future.  We  know 
nothing  about  the  past  excepting  on  the  sup- 
position, on  **  the  great  act  of  faith,"  that  the 
same  causes  were  in  operation  formerly  as  are  in 
operation  now.  But  it  is  a  singular  position  to 
assert  in  one  breath,  or  rather  in  one  month, 
that  it  is  immoral  and  unjustifiable  to  accept 
propositions  without  logically  satisfactory  evi- 
dence, and  in  another  breath,  or  another  month, 
to  say  that  the  validity  of  all  our  reasonings  rests 
on  a  great  act  of  faith  ;  and  further,  that,  "  from 
the  nature  of  ratiocination,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
axioms,  on  which  it  is  based,  cannot  be  demon- 
strated by  ratiocination."  If  faith  be  at  the 
basis  of  all  our  reasonings,  it  seems  unlikely  that 
it  should  have  no  place  in  the  superstructure. 
But  the  Professor  further  admits  (p.  244)  "  the 
profound  psychological  truth  that  men  con- 
stantly feel  certain  about  things  for  which  they 
strongly  hope,  but  have  no  evidence,  in  the  legal 
or  logical  sense  of  the  word.  ...  I  may  have 
the  most  absolute  faith  that  a  friend  has  not 
committed  the  crime  of  which  he  is  accused.  .  .  . 
Miserable  indeed  is  the  man  who  has  not  such 

^  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  243. 


PREFACE.  XVll 

faith  in  some  of  his  fellow-men."  Consequently, 
by  this  admission,  the  primary  condition  for  the 
noblest  elements  of  life,  of  affection  and  mutual 
devotion,  is  an  act  of  that  very  kind  which  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  denounces  as  immoral — namely, 
saying  you  are  certain  of  the  truth  and  inno- 
cence of  your  friend,  although  you  may  not 
be  able  to  produce  evidence  which  logically 
sustains  that  certainty.  It  will  probably  be 
felt  that  a  general  proposition  which  requires 
to  have  excepted  from  its  operation  the  very 
ground  of  all  reasonings,  and  the  very  con- 
ditions of  friendship  and  social  life,  can  hardly 
be  considered  a  practical  rule.  Elxceptions  are 
said  to  prove  rules,  but  exceptions  may  be  so 
numerous  and  so  weighty  as  to  disprove  the 
rule,  and  this  appears  to  be  such  a  case. 

It  may  well,  indeed,  be  doubted  whether  people 
are  generally  aware  how  slight,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  is  the  evidence  accessible  to  them,  or  to 
any  one,  on  which  the  most  confident  conclu- 
sions of  history  and  of  science  may  rest.  As 
to  history,  I  will  mention  only  one  example, 
which  seems  to  be  particularly  striking.  Prob- 
ably there  is  hardly  any  book  of  history  which 
is  received  with  more  unquestioning  acquies- 
cence than  the  writings  of  Thucydides.  They 
are  our  only  contemporary  authority  for  some 

h 


XVlll  PREFACE. 

of  the  most  interesting,  most  instructive,  and 
most  important  occurrences  in  civilised  his- 
tory ;  and,  as  written  by  an  historical  genius  of 
the  first  order,  they  hold  a  foremost  place  in 
the  history  of  human  thought.  Now  what  is 
the  evidence  accessible  to  us  that  this  work 
was  written  by  that  Thucydides  to  whom  all 
the  world  confidently  ascribes  it  ?  I  cannot 
discover,  after  inquiry  among  some  of  our  best 
living  scholars,  that  there  is  any  mention  at  all 
of  Thucydides  having  written  this  book  until 
more  than  two  hundred  years  after  he  died. 
The  fact  is  not  mentioned  by  the  historian  who 
narrates  the  subsequent  history  —  Xenophon  ; 
and  the  very  first  extant  notice  of  the  history 
of  Thucydides  is  by  Polybius.  Now  Thucydides 
died  about  the  year  400  B.C.,  and  Polybius  was 
born  about  the  year  204  B.C.  Polybius  seems 
to  have  written  his  history  towards  the  close 
of  his  life,  and  he  died  in  the  year  122  B.C. 
It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  we  are  much 
under  the  mark  in  saying  that  his  testimony  is 
more  than  two  hundred  years  after  the  death  of 
Thucydides.  This  silence  is  all  the  more  re- 
markable, as  we  have  works,  like  Aristotle's 
Politics,  in  which  it  might  have  been  expected 
that  so  great  an  historical  writer  would  have 
been  referred  to.     But  there  does  not  seem  to 


PREFACE.  XIX 

be  any  such  reference  to  him  extant.  Now,  a 
single  fact  of  this  kind — and  several  others  of  the 
same  sort  might  be  adduced  —  affords  a  strik- 
ing commentary  on  the  rigidness  with  which 
we  are  not  unfrequently  called  on  to  adduce 
direct  and  explicit  evidence  to  our  sacred  books 
from  contemporary  writers.  But  what  is  im- 
portant for  our  present  purpose  is  to  point  out 
that  here  is  an  instance  in  which  the  most  con- 
fident historical  judgments  are  rested  upon  very 
slight  external  evidence. 

But  it  is  next  to  be  observed  that  some  of 
the  greatest  advances  in  Science  itself  have  been 
made  by  men  who  have  been  earnestly  convinced 
of  truths,  for  which  it  was  impossible  for  them 
to  adduce  logically  satisfactory  evidence.  The 
most  striking  instance  that  occurs  to  me  is  the 
assertion  of  what  is  now  generally  known  as  the 
Copernican  system.  It  is  striking  to  reflect 
that  we  are  less  than  three  centuries  distant 
from  days  when  that  system  was  deemed,  even 
by  men  of  the  highest  eminence  and  learning, 
to  be  not  only  false  but  absurd.  Lord  Bacon, 
in  his  essay  in  'Praise  of  Knowledge,'  speaks 
in  passing  contempt  of  those  "few,"  or  new, 
"  carmen  which  drive  the  earth  about."  Co- 
pernicus died  in  1543,  and  it  was  nearly  one 
hundred   years    afterwards    that    Galileo    neu- 


XX  PREFACE. 

tralised  the  abjuration  wliicli  was  wrung  from 
him  by  the  exclamation,  '' E  pur  se  muove." 
A  hundred  years'  hard  struggle  had  to  be 
maintained  by  the  followers  of  Copernicus  be- 
fore their  master's  theory  became  an  acknow- 
ledged fact.  Does  any  one  suppose  that  the 
struggle  was  maintained  without  earnest  be- 
lief on  the  part  of  those  who  were  working  out 
the  system  ?  Can  it  be  questioned  that  they 
felt  practically  certain  of  it,  in  spite  of  the  diffi- 
culties with  which  it  seemed  to  be  surrounded, 
and  the  opposition  with  which  it  was  met? 
When  Galileo  said  "  E  pur  se  muove"  his 
knowledge  of  the  facts  of  the  solar  system 
was  still  very  imperfect ;  and  much  more  was 
this  the  case  with  Copernicus  himself.  Indeed 
it  is  stated  in  an  article  on  Copernicus  in 
the  'English  Cyclopaedia,'  which,  from  internal 
evidence,  may  probably  be  ascribed  to  the  late 
Professor  De  Morgan,  that  "  if  the  mechanics  of 
Copernicus  had  been  true,  the  system  of  Coper- 
nicus would  have  been  physically  impossible." 
Or  take,  again,  a  case  nearer  home,  the  theory  of 
evolution,  which  now  commends  such  general 
assent.  Did  the  followers  of  Darwin  wait  to 
express  the  conviction  they  felt  of  the  truth 
of  their  theory  until  they  had  "logically  satis- 
factory" proof  of  it?     Had  they  not  to  admit 


PREFACE.  XXI 

that  there  were  gaps  in  the  evidence,  points  of 
difficulty  which,  with  their  present  knowledge, 
could  not  be  explained  away?  But  it  com- 
mended itself  to  their  minds  as  a  great  in- 
duction, which  was  sure  to  be  proved ;  and 
they  acted  as  if  they  were  practically  certain 
of  it. 

In  a  word,  the  history  of  great  scientific  dis- 
coveries may  be  described  as  that  of  a  sort  of  pro- 
phetic induction.  Great  minds,  perhaps  because 
endowed  with  a  comprehensive  power  of  observa- 
tion, seem  to  discern  the  truth  long  before  it  is 
visible  to  ordinary  eyes,  and  long  before  it  is 
capable  of  proof.  They  proclaim  their  belief  in 
it,  they  excite  the  ardour  of  sympathetic  convic- 
tion in  others,  and  thus  the  world  of  knowledge 
and  thought  moves  on  from  stage  to  stage. 
That  which  governs  this  movement  is  that  law 
of  probability,  which  Bishop  Butler  has  said 
is  the  very  guide  of  life.  It  is  in  great 
measure  by  resting  on  probable  arguments,  by 
trusting  them,  and  experimenting  on  the  faith 
of  them,  that  scientific  advances  are  made. 
There  are  thus  two-. elements  combined  in 
any  great  scientific  movement.  There  is  first 
the  inductive  genius,  which,  from  the  facts  al- 
ready open  to  its  observation,  discerns  a  prin- 
ciple of  general  application,  a  law  of  nature, 


XXll  PREFACE. 

even  though  it  cannot  as  yet  be  thoroughly 
established ;  there  is  next  the  trust  and^en- 
thusiasm  which  this  genius  evokes  from  sym- 
pathetic minds :  in  consequence  of  these  two 
influences  there  is  a  combined  effort  at  further 
observation  and  experiment,  and  at  length, 
though  often  after  a  long  struggle  with  old 
prejudices,  the  truth  is  established. 

But,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  the  growth  of 
religious  faith  exhibits  a  very  similar  process. 
It  is  given  to  some  great  man — whether  by 
supernatural  inspiration  or  not,  need  not,  for 
our  present  purpose,  be  considered — to  discern 
some  great  spiritual  principle.  He  announces 
it  as  the  key  to  the  problems  of  the  moral  uni- 
verse, and  his  genius  and  enthusiasm  ensure  him 
followers.  They  are  animated,  partly  by  the 
glimpses  they  catch  of  the  same  idea,  and 
partly  by  trust  and  devotion  to  their  master  ; 
and  the  result  is  that  they  make  an  experi- 
ment on  a  vast  scale,  and  become  the  founders 
of  a  new  religion  and  civilisation.  It  consti- 
tutes, indeed,  an  important  difference  between 
such  a  case  and  that  of  scientific  discoveries 
that,  since  a  religious  experiment  involves 
action  of  a  most  momentous  character,  per- 
petuating  itself  in   subsequent    generations,    it 


PREFACE.  XXlll 

has  immediate  practical  consequences  of  a  very 
far-reaching  extent.  But  that  does  not  alter 
the  fact  that  the  one  process  is  marked  by 
characteristics  very  similar  to  those  of  the 
other.  Undoubtedly,  in  matters  of  such  mo- 
ment as  the  proclamation  of  a  new  religious 
truth,  the  responsibility  of  a  man  who  induces 
his  fellows  to  make  an  experiment  of  such 
a  nature  is  great  in  the  extreme,  and  there 
was,  perhaps,  a  wholesome  justice  in  the  plain 
language  which  used  to  be  customary  respecting 
false  prophets.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
impossible  to  witness  without  sympathy  and 
admiration  this  instinctive  trust  of  the  human 
race,  and  this  eagerness  to  grasp  at  solutions  of 
the  higher  problems  of  existence.  If  men  have 
erred  in  the  pursuit  of  these  mistaken  religions, 
they  have  to  a  great  extent  been  the  victims 
of  very  noble  impulses.  They  have  but  snatched 
too  eagerly  at  the  highest  truth  which  the 
human  mind  can  conceive,  and  they  have  ex- 
hibited unbounded  trust  and  generosity.  That, 
however,  with  which  we  are  concerned  at  pres- 
ent is  that  the  nature  of  the  religious  process 
is  in  great  measure  cognate  to  that  of  science. 
Faith  may  be  hasty  induction,  it  may  be  rash 
trust ;  but  it  is  induction  still,  and  it  is  the  same 


XXIV  PREFACE. 

kind  of  confidence  in  a  leader  and  teacher  as 
that  which  all  generous  students  of  science  in- 
dulge. » 

If,  moreover,  we  ask  what  is  to  be  our  guard 
and  guarantee  in  the  exercise  of  our  faculties 
in  the  sphere  of  Faith,  the  reply  is,  again,  the 
same  resource,  in  great  measure,  which  is  our 
guard  and  guarantee  in  the  case  of  Science. 
Let  us  test  our  suppositions  by  all  the  rational 
and  critical  methods  in  our  power.  Let  the 
great  inductions  of  Faith,  sustained  by  the 
testimony  of  the  great  leaders  of  religious  and 
moral  truth,  be  put  to  the  severest  tests  of 
reason  which  can  be  applied  to  them.  Do  not, 
indeed,  let  us  be  called  upon  to  refrain  from  in- 
dulging those  inductions,  or  to  forbear  putting 
them  to  the  proof  by  staking  our  lives  upon  them, 
until  they  can  be  logically  established ;  but  by 
all  means  let  us  apply  those  logical  tests  to  them 
in  as  great  a  degree  as  possible,  and  so  correct 
our  inductions,  and  clarify  our  beliefs,  by  every 
means  open  to  us.  The  contention  of  reasonable 
Christian  men  is  not  that  they  are  under  an 
obligation  to  believe  certain  doctrines,  whether 
rational  or  not,  but  that,  on  the  whole,  the 
truths  of  the  Christian  religion  appear  to  them 
the  best  induction  that  can  be  made  from  the 


PREFACE.  XXV 

facts  open  to  our  observation  in  the  religious 
and  moral  world ;  and  that  in  points  not  open 
to  our  observation  we  have  the  strongest  reasons 
ever  afforded  to  trust  that  Master  and  those 
teachers  by  whom,  on  various  points  not  within 
our  view,  assurances  respecting  the  unseen  and 
the  future  have  been  conveyed  to  us.  We  be- 
lieve that,  just  as  science  has  been  verified  by 
experience,  so  the  assertions  of  the  Christian 
revelation  have  been  verified,  more  and  more, 
by  the  experience  alike  of  history  and  of  in- 
dividuals. They  correspond,  in  our  judgment, 
to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  of  the  whole 
case,  better  than  any  other  principles  yet  made 
known  to  us.  We  claim,  accordingly,  to  stand,  to 
a  great  extent,  on  similar  ground  to  men  of 
science,  the  difference  mainly  lying  in  the  ex- 
tent of  the  observations  open  to  us  for  the  pur- 
pose of  our  inductions ;  so  that  in  the  sphere 
of  religion  we  are  obliged  to  trust  in  a  greater 
degree  to  the  assurances  of  those  who  are  wiser 
than  ourselves,  or  whom  we  believe  to  have  had 
special  means  of  information.  In  a  word,  though 
personal  trust  is  the  great  motive  power  and  the 
chief  strength  of  faith,  the  methods  relied  upon 
in  matters  of  religious  belief  are  in  great  meas- 
ure similar  to  those  of  science  ;    and  we  claim 


XXVI  PREFACE. 

therefore  to  be  as  true  to  the  canons  of  induc- 
tion, and  to  the  sound  principles  of  argument, 
as  any  natural  philosopher. 

It  remains  for  me  to  express  my  thanks  to 
the  editors  of  the  '  Nineteenth  Century '  and 
of  the  '  Quarterly  Eeview '  for  their  kindness  in 
permitting  me  to  reprint  the  following  articles. 


HENEY  WAGE. 


King's  College, 
London,  Dec.  1894. 


CONTENTS, 


PAGE 

PREFACE  ........  V 

ON    agnosticism:    a   paper    read    at    the    MANCHESTER 

CHURCH    CONGRESS,    1888 1 

AGNOSTICISM  :    A    REPLY    TO    PROFESSOR    HUXLEY     .  .  13 

(From  the  'Nineteenth  Century,'  March  1889.) 

CHRISTIANITY     AND     AGNOSTICISM  :     A     FURTHER     REPLY 

TO    PROFESSOR    HUXLEY        .....  62 

(From  the  'Nineteenth  Century,'  May  1889.) 

THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT      .        118 

(From  the  'Quarterly  Review,'  October  1886.) 

THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY  .  .  .        179 

(From  the  '  Quarterly  Review,'  July  1887.) 

APPENDIX. 

ROBERT    ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY  ....       243 
(From  the  '  Quarterly  Review,'  October  1888.) 

THE    speaker's    COMMENTARY    ON    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT, 

vols.  i.  and  ii.  ......      289 

(From  the  '  Quarterly  Review,'  April  1881.) 


THE  CHEISTIAN  FAITH,  AND  EECENT 
AGNOSTIC  ATTACKS. 


ON  AGNOSTICISM. 

The  following  paper  was  read  at  the  Manchester  Church 
Congress  in  September  1888,  and  gave  occasion  for  the 
articles  by  Professor  Huxley  to  which  the  two  following 
papers  reply. 

What  is  Agnosticism  ?  In  the  new  Oxford 
Dictionary  of  the  English  Language  we  are  told 
that  "  an  Agnostic  is  one  who  holds  that  the  ex- 
istence of  anything  beyond  and  behind  natural 
phenomena  is  unknown,  and  (so  far  as  can  be 
judged)  imknawable,  and  especially  that  a  First 
Cause  and  an  unseen  world  are  subjects  of  which 
we  know  nothing."  The  same  authority  quotes 
a  letter  from  Mr  K.  H.  Hutton,  stating  that  the 

A 


L  r>^   AGNOSTICISM. 

word  was  suggested  in  his  hearing,  at  a  party 
held  in  1869,  by  Professor  Huxley,  who  took  it 
from  St  Paul's  mention  of  the  altar  at  Athens  to 
the  Unknown  God.  "  Agnostic,"  it  is  further 
said,  in  a  passage  quoted  from  the  '  Spectator ' 
of  June  11,  1876,  "was  the  name  demanded  by 
Professor  Huxley  for  those  who  disclaimed 
Atheism,  and  believed  with  him  in  an  unknown 
and  unknowable  God,  or,  in  other  words,  that 
the  ultimate  origin  of  all  things  must  be  some 
cause  unknown  and  unknowable."  Again,  the 
late  honoured  Bishop  of  Manchester  is  quoted 
as  saying,  in  the  *  Manchester  Guardian '  in  1880, 
that  "the  Agnostic  neither  denied  nor  affirmed 
God.  He  simply  put  Him  on  one  side."  The 
designation  was  suggested,  therefore,  for  the 
purpose  of  avoiding  a  direct  denial  of  beliefs, 
respecting  God  such  as  are  asserted  by  our 
faith.  It  proceeds,  also,  from  a  scientific  source, 
and  claims  the  scientific  merit,  or  habit,  of 
reserving  opinion  respecting  matters  not  known 
or  proved. 

Now,  we  are  not  here  concerned  with  this 
doctrine  as  a  mere  question  of  abstract  philo- 
sophy respecting  the  limits  of  our  natural 
capacities.  We  have  to  consider  it  in  relation 
to  the  Church  and  to  Christianity,  and  the  main 
consideration  which  it  is  the   purpose   of  this 


ON   AGNOSTICISM.  3 

paper  to  suggest  is  that,  in  this  relation,  the 
adoption  of  the  term  Agnostic  is  only  an  attempt 
to  shift  the  issue,  and  that  it  involves  a  mere 
evasion.  A  Christian  catechism  says  :  r  First,  I 
learn  'to  believe  in  God  the  Father,  who  hath 
made  me,  and  all  the  world ;  secondly,  in  God 
the  Son,  who  hath  redeemed  me,  and  all  man- 
kind ;  thirdly,  in  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  who 
sanctifieth  me,  and  all  the  elect  people  of  God." 
The  Agnostic  says,  ''How  do  you  know  all  that? 
I  consider  I  have  no  means  of  knowing  these 
things  you  assert  respecting  God.  I  do  not 
know,  and  cannot  know,  that  God  is  a  Father, 
and  that  He  has  a  Son  ;  and  I  do  not  and  cannot 
know  that  such  a  Father  ma.de  me,  or  that  such 
a  Son  redeemed  me."  But  the  Christian  did  not 
sp^ak  of  what  he  knew,  but  of  what  he  believed. 
The  first  word  of  a  Christian  is  not  "  I  know," 
but  "  I  believe."  He  professes,  not  a  science, 
but  a  faith ;  and  at  baptism  he  accepts,  not  a 
theory,  but  a  creed. 

Now,  it  is  true  that  in  one  common  usage  of 
the  word,  belief  is  practically  equivalent  to 
opinion.  A  man  may  say  he  believes  in  a 
scientific  theory,  meaning  that  he  is  strongly 
of  opinion  that  it  is  true ;  or,  in  still  looser 
language,  he  may  say  he  believes  it  is  going  to 
be  a  fine  day.     I  would  observe,  in  passing,  that 


4  ON   AGNOSTICISM. 

even   in   this   sense   of  the  word,  a   man  who 

refused  to  act  upon  what  he  could  not  know 

would  be  a  very  unpractical  person.     If  you  are 

suffering  from  an  obscure  disease,  you  go  to  a 

doctor   to   obtain,  not   his   knowledge   of  your 

malady,  but  his  opinion  ;  and  upon  that  opinion, 

in  defiance  of  other  opinions,  even  an  Emperor 

may   have   to   stake   his   life.     Similarly,   from 

what  is  known  of  the  proceedings  in  Parliament 

respecting  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal,  it  may 

be  presumed  that  engineers  were  not  unanimous 

as  to  the  possibilities  and  advantages  of  that 

undertaking ;  but  Manchester  men  were  content 

to   act   upon   the   best    opinion,    and   to   stake 

fortunes  on  their  belief  in  it.     However,  it  may 

be  sufficient  to  have  just  alluded  to  the  old  and 

unanswered  contention   of  Bishop  Butler  that, 

even  if  Christian  belief  and  Christian  duty  were 

mere  matters  of  probable  opinion,  a  man  who 

said  in  regard  to  them,  "I  do  not  know,  and 

therefore  I  will  not  act,"  would  be  abandoning 

the  first  principle  of  human  energy.     He  might 

be  a  philosopher ;  but  he  would  not  be  a  man — 

not  at  least,  I  fancy,  according  to  the  standard 

of  Lancashire. 

But  there  is  another  sense  of  the  word  "  belief," 
which  is  of  far  more  importance  for  our  present 
subject.     There  is  belief  which  is  founded  on  the 


ON   AGNOSTICISM.  5 

assurances  of  another  person,  and  upon  our  trust 
in  him.  This  sort  of  belief  is  not  opinion,  but 
faith ;  and  it  is  this  which  has  been  the  greatest 
force  in  creating  religions,  and  through  them  in 
moulding  civilisations.  What  made  the  Mahom- 
medan  world  ?  Trust  and  faith  in  the  declara- 
tions and  assurances  of  Mahommed.  And  what 
made  the  Christian  world  ?  Trust  and  faith  in 
the  declarations  and  assurances  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  His  Apostles.  This  is  not  mere  believing 
about  things  ;  it  is  believing  a  man  and  believing 
in  a  man.  Now,  the  point  of  importance  for  the 
present  argument  is,  that  the  chief  articles  of  the 
Christian  creed  are  directly  dependent  on  per- 
sonal assurances  and  personal  declarations,  and 
that  our  acceptance  of  them  depends  on  personal 
trust.  Why  do  we  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
redeemed  all  mankind?  Because  He  said  so. 
There  is  no  other  ultimate  ground  for  it.  The 
matter  is  not  one  open  to  the  observation  of  our 
faculties  ;  and  as  a  matter  of  science  we  are  not 
in  a  position  to  know  it.  The  case  is  the  same 
with  His  Divine  Sonship  and  the  office  of  His 
Spirit.  He  reveals  Himself  by  His  words  and 
acts ;  and  in  revealing  Himself  He  reveals  His 
Father,  and  the  Spirit  who  proceeds  from  both. 
His  resurrection  and  His  miracles  afford  us,  as 
St  Paul  says,  assurance  of  His  divine  mission. 


6  ON   AGNOSTICISM. 

But  for  our  knowledge  of  His  offices  in  relation 
to  mankind,  and  of  His  nature  in  relation  to 
God,  we  rest  on  His  own  words,  confirmed  and 
explained  by  those  of  His  apostles.  Who  can 
dream  of  knowing,  as  a  matter  of  science,  that 
He  is  the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead  ?  But  He 
speaks  Himself,  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  of 
that  day  when  men  will  plead  before  Him,  and 
when  He  will  decide  their  fate ;  and  Christians 
include  in  their  creed  a  belief  in  that  statement 
respecting  the  unseen  and  future  world. 

But  if  this  be  so,  for  a  man  to  urge  as  an 
escape  from  this  article  of  belief  that  he  has  no 
means  of  a  scientific  knowledge  of  the  unseen 
world,  or  of  the  future,  is  irrelevant.  His  differ- 
ence from  Christians  lies  not  in  the  fact  that  he 
has  no  knowledge  of  these  things,  but  that  he 
does  not  believe  the  authority  on  which  they  are 
stated.  He  may  prefer  to  call  himself  an  Agnos- 
tic ;  but  his  real  name  is  an  older  one — he  is  an 
Infidel,  that  is  to  say,  an  unbeliever.  The  word 
Infidel,  perhaps,  carries  an  unpleasant  signifi- 
cance. Perhaps  it  is  right  that  it  should.  It  is, 
and  it  ought  to  be,  an  unpleasant  thing  for  a  man 
to  have  to  say  plainly  that  he  does  not  believe 
Jesus  Christ.  It  is,  indeed,  an  awful  thing  to 
say.  But  even  men  who  are  not  conscious  of  all 
it  involves  shrink  from   the   ungraciousness,  if 


ON   AGNOSTICISM.  7 

from  nothing  more,  of  treating  the  beliefs  in- 
separably associated  with  that  Sacred  Person  as 
an  illusion.  This,  however,  is  what  is  really 
meant  by  Agnosticism  ;  and  the  time  seems  to 
have  come  when  it  is  necessary  to  insist  upon 
the  fact. 

Of  course  there  may  be  numberless  attempts 
at  respectful  excuses  or  evasions,  and  there  is 
one  in  particular  which  may  require  notice.  It 
may  be  asked  how  far  we  can  rely  on  the 
accounts  we  possess  of  our  Lord's  teaching  on 
these  subjects.  Now,  it  is  unnecessary  for  the 
general  argument  before  us  to  enter  on  those 
questions  respecting  the  authenticity  of  the  Gos- 
pel narratives,  which  ought  to  be  regarded  as 
settled  by  M.  Kenan's  practical  surrender  of  the 
adverse  case.  Apart  from  all  disputed  points  of 
criticism,  no  one  practically  doubts  that  our 
Lord  lived,  and  that  He  died  on  the  cross,  in  the 
most  intense  sense  of  filial  relation  to  His  Father 
in  heaven,  and  that  He  bore  testimony  to  that 
Father's  providence,  love,  and  grace  towards 
mankind.  The  Lord's  Prayer  affords  sufiicient 
evidence  upon  these  points.  If  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  alone  be  added,  the  whole  unseen 
world,  of  which  the  Agnostic  refuses  to  know 
anything,  stands  unveiled  before  us.  There  you 
see  revealed  the  Divine  Father  and  Creator  of 


o  ON   AGNOSTICISM. 

all  things,  in  personal  relation  to  His  creatures, 
hearing  their  prayers,  witnessing  their  actions, 
caring  for  them  and  rewarding  them.  There 
you  hear  of  a  future  judgment  administered  by 
Christ  Himself,  and  of  a  heaven  to  be  hereafter 
revealed,  in  which  those  who  live  as  the  children 
of  that  Father,  and  who  suffer  in  the  cause  and 
for  the  sake  of  Christ  Himself,  will  be  abundantly 
rewarded.  If  Jesus  Christ  preached  that  sermon, 
made  those  promises,  and  taught  that  prayer, 
then  any  one  who  says  that  we  know  nothing  of 
God,  or  of  a  future  life,  or  of  an  unseen  world, 
says  that  he  does  not  believe  Jesus  Christ. 
Since  the  days  when  our  Lord  lived  and  taught, 
at  all  events.  Agnosticism  has  been  impossible 
without  Infidelity. 

Let  it  be  observed,  moreover,  that  to  put  the 
case  in  this  way  is  not  merely  to  make  an  appeal 
to  authority.  It  goes  further  than  that.  It  is 
in  a  vital  respect  an  appeal  to  experience,  and  so 
far  to  science  itself  It  is  an  appeal  to  what  I 
hope  may  be  taken  as,  confessedly,  the  deepest 
and  most  sacred  moral  experience  which  has  ever 
been  known.  No  criticism  worth  mentioning 
doubts  the  story  of  the  Passion:  and  that  story 
involves  the  most  solemn  attestation,  again  and 
again,  of  truths  of  which  an  Agnostic  coolly  says 
he  knows  nothing.    An  Agnosticism  which  knows 


ON   AGNOSTICISM.  9 

nothing  of  the  relation  of  man  to  God  must  not 
only  refuse  belief  to  our  Lord's  most  undoubted 
teaching,  but  must  deny  the  reality  of  the  spirit- 
ual convictions  in  which  He  lived  and  died.  It 
must  declare  that  His  most  intimate,  most  in- 
tense beliefs,  and  His  dying  aspirations,  were  an 
illusion.  Is  that  supposition  tolerable  ?  It  is 
because  it  is  not  tolerable  that  men  would  fain 
avoid  facing  it,  and  would  have  themselves  called 
Agnostics  rather  than  Infidels  ;  but  I  know  not 
w^hether  this  cool  and  supercilious  disregard  of 
that  solemn  teaching,  and  of  that  sacred  life  and 
death,  be  not  more  offensive  than  the  dow^nright 
denials  which  look  their  responsibility  boldly  in 
the  face,  and  say,  not  only  that  they  do  not 
know,  but  that  they  do  not  believe.  This  ques- 
tion of  living  faith  in  a  living  God  and  Saviour, 
with  all  it  involves,  is  too  urgent  and  momentous 
a  thing  to  be  put  aside  with  a  philosophical  "  I 
don't  know\"  The  best  blood  of  the  world  has 
been  shed  over  it ;  the  deepest  personal,  social, 
and  even  political  problems  are  still  bound  up 
with  it.  The  intensest  moral  struggles  of  hu- 
manity have  centred  round  this  question ;  and  it 
is  really  intolerable  that  all  this  bitter  experience 
of  men  and  women  who  have  trusted  and  prayed, 
and  suffered  and  died,  in  faith,  should  be  set  aside, 
as  not  germane  to  a  philosophical  argument. 


10  ON   AGNOSTICISM. 

But,  to  say  the  least,  from  a  purely  scientific 
point  of  view,  there  is  a  portentous  fallacy  in 
the  manner  in  which,  in  agnostic  arguments,  the 
testimony,  not  only  of  our  Lord,  but  of  Psalmists, 
Prophets,  Apostles,  and  Saints,  is  disregarded. 
So  far  as  the  Christian  faith  can  be  treated  as  a 
scientific  question,  it  is  a  question  of  experience  ; 
and  what  is  to  be  said  of  a  science  which  leaves 
out  of  account  the  most  conspicuous  and  most 
influential  experience  in  the  matter  ?  One  thing 
may  be  said  with  confidence  :  that  it  defeats 
itself,  by  disregarding  the  greatest  force  wdth 
which  it  has  to  contend.  While  philosophers  are 
arguing  as  to  the  abstract  capacities  of  human 
thought,  as  though  our  Lord  had  never  lived 
and  died.  He  Himself  is  still  speaking ;  His 
words,  as  recorded  by  His  Apostles  and  Evangel- 
ists, are  still  echoing  over  human  hearts,  touch- 
ing their  inmost  afi'ections,  appealing  to  their 
deepest  needs,  commanding  their  profoundest 
trust,  and  awakening  in  them  an  apprehension 
of  that  Divine  relation  and  those  unseen  realities 
in  which  their  spirits  live.  While  Agnostics  are 
committing  the  enormous  scientific,  as  well  as 
moral,  blunder  of  considering  the  relations  of 
men  to  God  and  to  an  unseen  world  without 
taking  His  evidence  into  account,  and  then  pre- 
suming to  judge  the  faith  He  taught  by  their 


ON    AGNOSTICISM.  11 

own  partial  knowledge,  His  voice  is  still  heard, 
in  penetrating  and  comfortable  words,  bidding 
men  believe  in  God  and  believe  also  in  Himself. 
He,  after  all,  is  the  one  sufficient  answer  to  Agnos- 
ticism, and,  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  adding, 
to  Atheism  and  to  Pessimism  also — not  merely 
His  authority,  though  that  would  be  enough,  but 
His  life,  His  soul.  Himself. 

Accordingly,  as  our  object  here  is  to  consider 
how  to  deal  with  these  difficulties  and  objections, 
what  these  considerations  would  seem  to  point 
out  is  that  we  should  take  care  to  let  Christ  and 
Christ's  own  message  be  heard,  and  not  to  endure 
that  they  should  be  allowed  to  stand  aside  while 
a  philosophical  debate  is  proceeding.  Philoso- 
phers are  slow  in  these  matters.  They  are  still 
disputing,  after  some  2500  years  of  discussion, 
what  is  the  true  principle  for  determining  moral 
right  and  wrong.  Meanwhile,  men  have  been 
content  to  live  by  the  Ten  Commandments,  and 
the  main  lines  of  duty  are  plain.  In  the  same 
way,  religion  has  preceded  the  philosophy  of  re- 
ligion ;  and  men  can  be  made  sensible  of  their 
relation  to  God,  whether  it  can  be  philosophi- 
cally explained  or  not.  The  Psalms,  the  Prophets, 
and,  above  all,  the  Gospels,  are  plain  evidence,  in 
matter  of  fact,  that  men  are  in  relation  to  God 
and  owe  duties  to  Him.     Let  men  be  made  to 


12  ON   AGNOSTICISM. 

attend  to  the  facts  ;  let  them  hear  those  simple, 
plain,  and  earnest  witnesses  ;  above  all,  let  them 
hear  the  voice  of  Christ,  and  they  will  at  least 
believe,  whatever  may  be  the  possibilities  of 
knowledge.  In  a  word,  let  us  imitate  St  Paul 
when  his  converts  were  perplexed  by  Greek 
philosophies  at  Corinth  :  "I,  brethren,  when  I 
came  to  you,  came  not  with  excellency  of  speech, 
or  of  wisdom,  declaring  unto  you  the  testi- 
mony of  God  :  for  I  determined  not  to  know  any 
thing  among  you,  save  Jesus  Christ,  and  Him 
crucified." 


13 


ON  A  DEFENCE  OF  AGNOSTICISM  BY 
PEOFESSOE  HUXLEY. 

The  preceding  paper  was  the  chief  subject  of  an  article 
by  Professor  Huxley,  published  in  the  ^  JN'ineteenth  Century  ' 
for  February  1889,  and  now  reprinted  m  vol.  v.  of  the  Pro- 
fessor's '  Collected  Essays/  entitled  '  Science  and  Christian 
Tradition/  p.  209.  To  that  article  the  following  reply  was 
published  in  the  'Nineteenth  Century '  for  March  1889.  A 
few  introductory  observations  of  purely  personal  and  tempor- 
ary interest  are  omitted. 

It  is  a  matter  of  justice  to  my  cause  and  to 
myself  to  remove  at  once  the  unscientific  and 
prejudiced  representation  of  the  case  which  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  has  put  forward ;  and  fortunately 
there  will  be  no  need  of  elaborate  argument 
for  this  purpose.  There  is  no  occasion  to  go 
beyond  Professor  Huxley's  own  article  and  the 
language  of  my  paper  to  exhibit  his  entire  mis- 
apprehension of  the  point  in  dispute ;  while  I 
am  much  more  than  content  to  rely  for  the 
invalidation  of  his  own  contentions  upon  the 
authorities  he  himself  quotes. 


14  ON   A   DEFENCE    OF   AGNOSTICISM 

What,  then,  is  the  position  with  which  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  finds  fault  ?  He  is  good  enough 
to  say  that  what  he  calls  my  "  description "  of 
an  Agnostic  may  for  the  present  pass,  so  that 
we  are  so  far,  at  starting,  on  common  ground. 
The  actual  description  of  an  Agnostic  which  is 
given  in  my  paper  is  indeed  distinct  from  the 
words  he  quotes,  and  is  taken  from  an  authori- 
tative source.  But  what  I  have  said  is  that,  as 
an  escape  from  such  an  article  of  Christian  belief 
as  that  we  have  a  Father  in  heaven,  or  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead,  and 
will  hereafter  return  to  judge  the  world,  an 
Agnostic  urges  that  "  he  has  no  means  of  a 
scientific  knowledge  of  the  unseen  world  or  of 
the  future "  ;  and  I  maintain  that  this  plea  is 
irrelevant.  Christians  do  not  presume  to  say 
that  they  have  a  scientific  knowledge  of  such 
articles  of  their  creed.  They  say  that  they 
believe  them,  and  they  believe  them  mainly 
on  the  assurances  of  Jesus  Christ.  Consequently 
their  characteristic  difference  from  an  Agnostic 
consists  in  the  fact  that  they  believe  those 
assurances,  and  that  he  does  not.  Professor 
Huxley's  observation,  "  Are  there,  then,  any 
Christians  who  say  that  they  know  nothing 
about  the  unseen  world  and  the  future  ?  I  was 
ignorant  of  the  fact,  but  I  am  ready  to  accept 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  15 

it  on  the  authority  of  a  professional  theologian," 
is  either  a  quibble,  or  one  of  many  indications 
that  he  does  not  recognise  the  point  at  issue. 
I  am  speaking,  as  the  sentence  shows, ^  of  scien- 
tific knowledge  —  knowledge  which  can  be 
obtained  by  our  own  reason  and  observation 
alone  —  and  no  one  with  Professor  Huxley's 
learning  is  justified  in  being  ignorant  that  it 
is  not  upon  such  knowledge,  but  upon  super- 
natural  revelation,  that  Christian   belief  rests. 

^  And  as  Professor  Huxley  knew,  for  he  expressly  states  it  in 
the  following  passage,  from  which  I  am  quoting  in  the  text : — 

"  Let  us  calmly  and  dispassionately  consider  Dr  Wace's  appreci- 
ation of  Agnosticism.  The  Agnostic,  according  to  his  view,  is  a 
person  who  says  he  has  no  means  of  attaining  a  scientific  know- 
ledge of  the  unseen  world  or  of  the  future  ;  by  which  somewhat 
loose  phraseology  Dr  Wace  presumably  means  the  theological 
unseen  world  and  future.  I  cannot  think  this  description  happy 
either  in  form  or  substance,  but  for  the  present  it  may  pass.  Dr 
Wace  continues,  that  is  not  '  his  difference  from  Christians.'  Are 
there,  then,  any  Christians  who  say  that  they  know  nothing  about 
the  unseen  world  and  the  future  ?  I  was  ignorant  of  the  fact, 
but  I  am  ready  to  accept  it  on  the  authority  of  a  professional 
theologian,  and  I  proceed  to  Dr  Wace's  next  proposition. 

"  The  real  state  of  the  case,  then,  is  that  the  Agnostic  *  does  not 
believe  the  authority '  on  which  '  these  things '  are  stated,  which 
authority  is  Jesus  Christ.  He  is  simply  an  old-fashioned  '  infidel ' 
who  is  afraid  to  own  to  his  right  name.  As  '  Presbyter  is  priest 
writ  large,'  so  is  'agnostic'  the  mere  Greek  equivalent  for  the 
Latin  'infidel.'  There  is  an  attractive  simplicity  about  this 
solution  of  the  problem  ;  and  it  has  ^that  advantage  of  being 
somewhat  offensive  to  the  persons  attacked,  which  is  so  dear  to 
the  less  refined  sort  of  controversialist." — Science  and  Christian 
Tradition,  p.  211. 


16  ON   A   DEFENCE    OF    AGNOSTICISM 

However,  as  he  goes  on  to  say,  my  view  of  "  the 
real  state  of  the  case  is  that  the  Agnostic  '  does 
not  believe  the  authority '  on  which  '  these 
things '  are  stated,  which  authority  is  Jesus 
Christ.  He  is  simply  an  old-fashioned  '  infidel ' 
who  is  afraid  to  own  to  his  right  name."  The 
argument  has  nothing  to  do  with  his  motive, 
whether  it  is  being  afraid  or  not.  It  only 
concerns  the  fact  that  that  by  which  he  is 
distinctively  separated  from  the  Christian  is 
that  he  does  not  believe  the  assurances  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

Professor  Huxley  thinks  there  is  "an  attrac- 
tive simplicity  about  this  solution  of  the  problem  " 
— he  means,  of  course,  this  statement  of  the 
case — "  and  it  has  that  advantage  of  being 
somewhat  ofi'ensive  to  the  persons  attacked, 
which  is  so  dear  to  the  less  refined  sort  of  con- 
troversialist." I  think  Professor  Huxley  must 
have  forgotten  himself  and  his  own  feelings  in 
this  observation.  There  can  be  no  question,  of 
course,  of  his  belonging  himself  to  the  more 
refined  sort  of  controversialists ;  but  he  has  a 
characteristic  fancy  for  solutions  of  jDroblems,  or 
statements  of  cases,  which  have  the  ''  advantage 
of  being  somewhat  ofi'ensive  to  the  persons  at- 
tacked." Without  taking  this  particular  phrase 
into  account,  it  certainly  has  "  the  advantage  of 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  17 

being  offensive  to  the  persons  attacked  ''  that 
Professor  Huxley  should  speak  in  this  article^ 
of  "  the  pestilent  doctrine  on  which  all  the 
Churches  have  insisted,  that  honest  disbelief" 
— the  word  "  honest "  is  not  a  misquotation — 
' '  honest  disbelief  in  their  more  or  less  aston- 
ishing creeds  is  a  moral  offence,  indeed  a  sin 
of  the  deepest  dye,  deserving  and  involving  the 
same  future  retribution  as  murder  or  robbery," 
or  that  he  should  say,  "  Trip  in  morals  or  in 
doctrine  (especially  in  doctrine),  without  due 
repentance  or  retractation,  or  fail  to  get  properly 
baptised  before  you  die,  and  a  plebiscite  of  the 
Christians  of  Europe,  if  they  were  true  to  their 
creeds,  would  affirm  your  everlasting  damnation 
by  an  immense  majority."  We  have  fortunately 
nothing  to  do  with  plebiscites  in  this  argument ; 
and  as  statements  of  authoritative  Christian 
teaching,  the  least  that  can  be  said  of  these 
allegations  is  that  they  are  offensive  exaggera- 
tions. It  had  ''the  advantage,"  again,  of  being 
"  offensive  to  the  persons  attacked,"  when  Pro- 
fessor Huxley,  in  an  article  in  the  '  Nineteenth 
Century'  on  "Science  and  the  Bishops,"  in  Nov- 
ember 1887,^  said  that  "scientific  ethics  can  and 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  pp.  240,  242. 
'^  Republished  in  '  Science  and  Christian  Tradition '  under  the 
title  of  "An  Episcopal  Trilogy;"  see  p.  141. 


1«  ON   A   DEFENCE    OF   AGNOSTICISM 

does  declare  that  the  profession  of  belief"  in 
such  narratives  as  that  of  the  devils  entering  a 
herd  of  swine,  or  of  the  fig-tree  that  was  blasted 
for  bearing  no  figs,  upon  the  evidence  on  which 
multitudes  of  Christians  believe  it,  "is  im- 
moral "  ;  and  the  observation  which  follows,  that 
"  theological  apologists  .  .  .  would  do  well  to 
consider  the  fact  that,  in  the  matter  of  intel- 
lectual veracity,  science  is  already  a  long  way 
ahead  of  the  Churches,"  has  the  same  "advan- 
tage." I  repeat  that  I  cannot  but  treat  Professor 
Huxley  as  an  example  of  the  more  refined  sort 
of  controversialist ;  it  must  be  supposed,  there- 
fore, that  when  he  speaks  of  observations  or 
insinuations  which  are  somewhat  off'ensive  to 
the  "  persons  attacked  "  being  dear  to  the  other 
sort  of  controversialists,  he  is  unconscious  of  his 
own  methods  of  controversy — or,  shall  I  say,  his 
own  temptations  ? 

But  I  desire  as  far  as  possible  to  avoid  any 
rivalry  with  Professor  Huxley  in  these  refine- 
ments— more  or  less — of  controversy;  and  am, 
in  fact,  forced  by  pressure  both  of  space  and  of 
time  to  keep  as  rigidly  as  possible  to  the  points 
directly  at  issue.  He  proceeds  to  restate  the 
case  as  follows  ^ :  "  The  Agnostic  says,  '  I  cannot 

1  "  The  Agnostic  says,  '  I  cannot  find  good  evidence  that  so  and 
so  is  true.'     'Ah,'  says  his  adversary,  seizing  his  opportunity, 


BY   PROFESSOR    HUXLEY.  19 

find  good  evidence  that  so  and  so  is  true.'  '  Ah,' 
says  his  adversary,  seizing  his  opportunity,  '  then 
you  declare  that  Jesus  Christ  was  untruthful,  for 
He  said  so  and  so ' — a  very  telling  method  of 
rousing  prejudice."  Now,  that  superior  scientific 
veracity  to  which,  as  we  have  seen.  Professor 
Huxley  lays  claim,  sAould  have  prevented  his 
putting  such  vulgar  words  into  my  mouth. 
There  is  not  a  word  in  my  j^aper  to  charge 
Agnostics  with  declaring  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
"  untruthful."  I  believe  it  impossible  in  these 
days  for  any  man  who  claims  attention — I  might 
say,  for  any  man — to  declare  our  Lord  untruth- 
ful. What  I  said,  and  what  I  repeat,  is  that  the 
position  of  an  Agnostic  involves  the  conclusion 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  under  an  "  illusion "  in 
respect  to  the  deepest  beliefs  of  His  life  and 
teaching.  The  words  of  my  paper  are:  '*An 
Agnosticism  which  knows  nothing  of  the  relation 

'  tlien  you  declare  that  Jesus  Christ  was  untruthful,  for  He  said 
so  and  so;'  a  very  telling  method  of  rousing  prejudice.  But 
suppose  that  the  value  of  the  evidence  as  to  what  Jesus  may  have 
said  and  done,  and  as  to  the  exact  nature  and  scope  of  his 
authority,  is  just  that  which  the  Agnostic  finds  it  most  difficult 
to  determine  ?  If  I  venture  to  doubt  that  the  Duke  of  Welling- 
ton gave  the  command  '  Up,  Guards,  and  at  'em  ! '  at  Waterloo, 
1  do  not  think  that  even  Dr  Wace  would  accuse  me  of  disbeliev- 
ing the  Duke.  Yet  it  would  be  just  as  reasonable  to  do  this  as 
to  accuse  any  one  of  denying  what  Jesus  said  before  the  prelimin- 
ary question  as  to  what  He  did  say  is  settled." — Science  and 
Christian  Tradition,  p.  212. 


20  ON    A   DEFENCE    OF    AGNOSTICISM 

of  man  to  God  must  not  only  refuse  belief  to 
our  Lord's  most  undoubted  teaching,  but  must 
deny  the  reality  of  the  spiritual  convictions  in 
which  He  lived  and  died."  The  point  is  this — 
that  there  can,  at  least,  be  no  reasonable  doubt 
that  Jesus  Christ  lived,  and  taught,  and  died,  in 
the  belief  of  certain  great  principles,  respecting 
the  existence  of  God,  our  relation  to  God,  and 
His  own  relation  to  us,  which  an  Agnostic  says 
are  beyond  the  possibilities  of  human  knowledge ; 
and  of  course  an  Agnostic  regards  Jesus  Christ  as 
a  man.  If  so,  he  must  necessarily  regard  Jesus 
Christ  as  mistaken,  since  the  notion  of  His  being 
untruthful  is  a  supposition  which  I  could  not 
conceive  being  suggested.  The  question  I  have 
put  is  not,  as  Professor  Huxley  represents,  what 
is  the  most  unpleasant  alternative  to  belief  in 
the  primary  truths  of  the  Christian  religion, 
but  what  is  the  least  unpleasant ;  and  all  I  have 
maintained  is  that  the  least  unpleasant  alterna- 
tive necessarily  involved  is,  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
under  an  illusion  in  His  most  vital  convictions. 

I  content  myself  with  thus  rectifying  the  state 
of  the  case,  without  making  the  comments  which 
I  think  would  be  justified  on  such  a  crude  mis- 
representation of  my  argument.  But  Professor 
Huxley  goes  on  to  observe  that  "the  value  of 
the  evidence  as  to  what  Jesus  may  have  said 


BY    PROFESSOR    HUXLEY.  21 

and  done,  and  as  to  the  exact  nature  and  scope 
of  His  authority,  is  just  that  which  the  Agnostic 
finds  it  most  difficult  to  determine."  Un- 
doubtedly, that  is  a  primary  question ;  but  who 
would  suppose  from  Professor  Huxley's  state- 
ment of  the  case  that  the  argument  of  the  paper 
he  is  attacking  proceeded  to  deal  with  this  very 
point,  and  that  he  has  totally  ignored  the  chief 
consideration  it  alleged?  Almost  immediately 
after  the  words  Professor  Huxley  has  quoted, 
the  following  passage  occurs,  which  I  must 
needs  repeat,  as  containing  the  central  point 
of  the  argument :  "  It  may  be  asked  how  far 
we  can  rely  on  the  accounts  we  possess  of 
our  Lord's  teaching  on  these  subjects.  Now,  it 
is  unnecessary  for  the  general  argument  before 
us  to  enter  on  those  questions  respecting  the 
authenticity  of  the  Gospel  narratives,  which 
ought  to  be  regarded  as  settled  by  M.  Eenan's 
practical  surrender  of  the  adverse  case.  Apart 
from  all  disputed  points  of  criticism,  no  one 
practically  doubts  that  our  Lord  lived,  and  that 
He  died  on  the  cross,  in  the  most  intense  sense 
of  filial  relation  to  His  Father  in  heaven,  amd 
that  He  bore  testimony  to  that  Fathers  pro- 
vidence, love,  and  grace  toivards  mankind.  The 
Lord's  Prayer  affords  sufficient  evidence  upon 
these  points.     Lf  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  alone 


22  ON   A   DEFENCE    OF    AGNOSTICISM 

he  added,  the  whole  unseen  world,  of  which  the 
Agnostic  refuses  to  know  anything,  stands  un- 
veiled before  us.  There  you  see  revealed  the 
Divine  Father  and  Creator  of  all  things,  in 
personal  relation  to  His  creatures,  hearing  their 
prayers,  witnessing  their  actions,  caring  for 
them  and  rewarding  them.  There  you  hear  of 
a  future  judgment  administered  by  Christ  Him- 
self and  of  a  heaven  to  be  hereafter  revealed, 
in  which  those  who  live  as  the  children  of  that 
Father,  and  who  suffer  in  the  cause  and  for  the 
sake  of  Christ  Himself  will  be  abundantly  re- 
warded. If  Jesus  Christ  preached  that  sermon, 
made  those  promises,  and  taught  that  prayer, 
then  any  one  who  says  that  we  knoiv  nothing  of 
God,  or  of  a  future  life,  or  of  an  unseen  ivorld, 
says  that  he  does  not  believe  Jesus  Christ.'' 

Professor  Huxley  has  not  one  word  to  say 
upon  this  argument,  though  the  whole  case  is 
involved  in  it.  Let  us  take  as  an  example 
the  illustration  he  proceeds  to  give.  "  If,"  he 
says,  "  I  venture  to  doubt  that  the  Duke  of 
Wellington  gave  the  command,  '  Up,  Guards, 
and  at  em ! '  at  Waterloo,  I  do  not  think 
that  even  Dr  Wace  would  accuse  me  of  dis- 
believing the  Duke."  Certainly  not.  But  if 
Professor  Huxley  were  to  maintain  that  the 
pursuit   of  glory  was   the   true   motive  of  the 


BY    PROFESSOR    HUXLEY.  23 

soldier,  and  that  it  was  an  illusion  to  suppose 
that  simple  devotion  to  duty  could  be  the 
supreme  guide  of  military  life,  I  should  certainly 
charge  him  with  contradicting  the  Duke's  teach- 
ing and  disregarding  his  authority  and  example. 
A  hundred  stories  like  that  of  "  Up,  Guards,  and 
at  'em  !  "  might  be  doubted,  or  positively  dis- 
proved, and  it  would  still  remain  a  fact  beyond 
all  reasonable  doubt  that  the  Duke  of  Wellington 
was  essentially  characterised  by  the  sternest  and 
most  devoted  sense  of  duty,  and  that  he  had 
inculcated  duty  as  the  very  watchword  of  a 
soldier;  and  even  Professor  Huxley  would  not 
suggest  that  Lord  Tennyson's  ode,  which  has 
embodied  this  characteristic  in  immortal  verse, 
was  an  unfounded  poetical  romance. 

The  main  question  at  issue,  in  a  word,  is  one 
which  Professor  Huxley  has  chosen  to  leave 
entirely  on  one  side — whether,  namely,  allowing 
for  the  utmost  uncertainty  entertained  on  other 
points  by  the  criticism  to  which  he  appeals,  there 
is  any  reasonable  doubt  that  the  Lord's  Prayer 
and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  afford  a  true  ac- 
count of  our  Lord's  essential  belief  and  cardinal 
teaching.  If  they  do — then  I  am  not  now  con- 
tending that  they  involve  the  whole  of  the  Chris- 
tian creed ;  I  am  not  arguing,  as  Professor  Huxley 
seems  to  suppose,  that  he  ought  for  that  reason 


24  ON   A   DEFENCE   OF   AGNOSTICISM 

alone  to  be  a  Christian — I  simply  represent  that, 
as  an  Agnostic,  he  must  regard  those  beliefs  and 
that  teaching  as  mistaken,  as  the  result  of  an 
illusion,  to  say  the  least.  I  am  not  going, 
therefore,  to  follow  Professor  Huxley's  example, 
and  go  down  a  steep  place  with  the  Gadarene 
swine  into  a  sea  of  uncertainties  and  possibilities, 
and  stake  the  whole  case  of  Christian  belief 
as  against  Agnosticism  upon  one  of  the  most 
difficult  and  mysterious  narratives  in  the  New 
Testament.  I  will  state  my  position  on  that 
question  presently.  But  I  am  first  and  chiefly 
concerned  to  point  out  that  Professor  Huxley 
has  skilfully  evaded  the  very  point  and  edge  of 
the  argument  he  had  to  meet.  Let  him  raise 
what  difficulties  he  pleases,  with  the  help  of  his 
favourite  critics,  about  the  Gadarene  swine,  or 
even  about  all  the  stories  of  demoniacs.  He  will 
find  that  his  critics  —  and  even  critics  more 
rationalistic  than  they — fail  him  when  it  comes 
to  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  and,  I  will  add,  the  story  of  the  Passion. 
He  will  find,  or  rather  he  must  have  found,  that 
the  very  critics  he  relies  upon  recognise  that  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
allowing  for  variations  in  form  and  order,  the 
substance  of  our  Lord's  essential  teaching  is  pre- 
served.    On  a  point  which,  until  Professor  Hux- 


BY    PROFESSOR    HUXLEY.  25 

ley  shows  cause  to  the  contrary,  can  hardly  want 
argument,  the  judgment  of  the  most  recent  of 
his  witnesses  may  suffice — Professor  Eeuss  of 
Strasburg.  In  Professor  Huxley's  article  on  the 
"Evolution  of  Theology"  in  the  *  Fortnightly 
Eeview'  for  March  1886,  he  says:^  "As  Eeuss 
appears  to  me  to  be  one  of  the  most  learned, 
acute,  and  fair  -  minded  of  those  whose  works 
I  have  studied,  I  have  made  most  use  of  the 
commentary  and  dissertations  in  his  splendid 
French  edition  of  the  Bible."  What,  then,  is 
the  opinion  of  the  critic  for  whom  Professor 
Huxley  has  this  regard  ?  In  the  volume  of  his 
work  which  treats  of  the  first  three  Gospels, 
Eeuss  says,  at  pp.  191,  192,^  "If  anywhere  the 
tradition  which  has  preserved  to  us  the  reminis- 
cences of  the  life  of  Jesus  upon  earth  carries 
with  it  certainty  and  the  evidence  of  its  fidelity, 
it  is  here  ;  "  and  again,^  "  In  short,  it  must  be 
acknowledged   that  the   redactor,  in  thus   con- 

1  Reprinted  in  '  Science  and  Hebrew  Tradition,'  p.  294,  note. 

2  "  Si  quelque  part  la  tradition,  qui  nous  a  conserve  les  souvenirs 
du  passage  de  Jesus  sur  la  terre,  porte  avec  elle  la  certitude, 
la  preuve  de  sa  fidelite,  c'est  bien  ici." 

3  "En  somme,  cependant,  il  convient  de  reconnaitre  que  le 
redacteur,  en  concentrant  ainsi  la  substance  de  I'enseignement 
moral  du  Seigneur,  a  rendu  un  vrai  service  a  I'etude  religieuse 
de  cette  partie  de  la  tradition,  et  les  reserves  que  la  critique 
historique  est  en  droit  de  faire  sur  la  forme  n'amoindriront  en 
aucune  fa9on  cet  avantage." 


26  ON    A   DEFENCE    OF   AGNOSTICISM 

centrating  tlie  substance  of  the  moral  teaching 
of  the  Lord,  has  rendered  a  real  service  to  the 
religious  study  of  this  portion  of  the  tradition, 
and  the  reserves  which  historical  criticism  has 
a  right  to  make  with  respect  to  the  form  will 
in  no  way  diminish  this  advantage."  It  will  be 
observed  that  Professor  Eeuss  thinks,  as  many 
good  critics  have  thought,  that  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  combines  various  distinct  utterances 
of  our  Lord,  but  he  none  the  less  recognises  that 
it  embodies  an  unquestionable  account  of  the 
substance  of  our  Lord's  teaching. 

But  it  is  surely  superfluous  to  argue  either 
this  particular  point,  or  the  main  conclusion 
which  I  have  founded  on  it.  Can  there  be  any 
doubt  whatever,  in  the  mind  of  any  reasonable 
man,  that  Jesus  Christ  had  beliefs  respecting 
God  for  which  an  Agnostic  alleges  there  is 
no  sufficient  ground  ?  We  know  something  at 
all  events  of  what  His  disciples  taught ;  we  have 
authentic  original  documents,  unquestioned  by 
any  of  Professor  Huxley's  authorities,  as  to  what 
St  Paul  taught  and  believed,  and  of  what  he 
taught  and  believed  respecting  his  Master's 
teaching ;  and  the  central  point  of  this  teaching 
is  a  direct  assertion  of  knowledge  and  revelation 
as  against  the  very  Agnosticism  from  which 
Professor   Huxley   manufactured   that   designa- 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  27 

tion.  "  As  I  passed  by,"  said  St  Paul  at  Athens, 
"  I  found  an  altar  with  this  inscription  :  To  the 
unknown  God.  Whom  therefore  ye  ignorantly 
[or  in  agnosticism]  worship.  Him  declare  I  unto 
you."  ^  An  Agnostic  withholds  his  assent  from 
this  primary  article  of  the  Christian  creed ;  and 
though  Professor  Huxley,  in  spite  of  the  lack  of 
information  he  alleges  respecting  early  Christian 
teaching,  knows  enough  on  the  subject  to  have 
a  firm  beliefs  ''that  the  Nazarenes,  say,  of  the 
year  40,"  headed  by  James,  would  have  thought 
worthy  of  stoning  any  one  who  propounded  the 
Nicene  Creed  to  them,  he  will  hardly  contend 
that  they  denied  that  article,  or  doubted  that 
Jesus  Christ  believed  it.  Let  us  again  listen 
to  the  authority  to  whom  Professor  Huxley 
himself  refers.  Eeuss  says  at  p.  4  of  the 
work  already  quoted  ^ : — 

"  Historical    literature     in    the     primitive    Church 


1  Acts  xvii.  23.  ^  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  233. 

^  "  La  litterature  liistorique,  dans  I'Eglise  primitive,  se  rattache 
de  la  maniere  la  plus  immediate  aux  souvenirs  recueillis  par  les 
Apotres  et  leurs  amis  aussitot  apres  leur  separation  d'avec  leur 
maitre.  Le  besoin  d'un  pareil  retour  vers  le  passd  naissait 
naturellement  de  la  profonde  impression  qu'avait  faite  sur  eux 
I'enseignement,  et  plus  encore  I'individualite  de  Jesus  elle-meme, 
et  sur  laqiielle  se  fondaient  et  leurs  esperances  pour  I'avenir 
et  leurs  convictions,  naguere  assez  vagues  encore,  concernant  le 
mystere  qui  entourait  sa  personne.    .    .    .    C'est  dans  ces  faits, 


28  ON    A   DEFENCE    OF    AGNOSTICISM 

attaches  itself  in  the  most  immediate  manner  to  the 
reminiscences  collected  by  the  apostles  and  their 
friends  directly  after  their  separation  from  their 
Master.  The  need  of  such  a  return  to  the  past  arose 
naturally  from  the  profound  impression  which  had 
been  made  upon  them  by  the  teaching,  and  still  more 
by  the  individuality  itself  of  Jesus,  and  on  which 
were  founded  both  their  hopes  for  the  future  and  their 
convictions,  but  lately  vague  enough,  concerning  the 
mystery  which  surrounded  his  person.  ...  It  is  in 
these  facts,  in  this  continuity  of  a  tradition  which 
must  go  back  to  the  very  morrow  of  the  tragic  scene 
of  Golgotha,  that  we  have  a  strong  guarantee  for 
its  authenticity.  .  .  .  We  have  direct  historical  proof 
that  the  thread  of  tradition  was  not  interrupted.  Not 
only  does  one  of  our  evangelists  furnish  this  proof  in 
formal  terms  (Luke  i.  2),  but  in  many  other  places 
besides  we  perceive  the  idea,  or  the  point  of  view, 
that  all  which  the  apostles  know,  think,  and  teach,  is 
at  bottom  and  essentially  a  reminiscence,  a  reflection 
of  what  they  have  seen  and  learnt  at  another  time, 
a  reproduction  of  lessons  and  impressions  received." 

Now,  let  it  be  allowed  for  argument's  sake 
that  the  belief  and  teaching  of  the  apostles  are 

dans  cette  continuity  d'une  tradition  qui  doit  remonter  jusqu'au 
lendemain  meme  le  la  scene  tragique  de  Golgotha,  que  nous 
trouvons  une  puissante  garantie  de  son  autlienticite.  .  .  . 
Nous  avons  la  preuve  historique  et  directe  qu'il  ne  I'a  pas  ete 
(interrompu).  Non  seulement  I'un  de  nos  evangelistes  la  Iburnit 
en  termes  formels  (Luke  i.  2,  &c.),  en  maint  autre  endroit  encore 
nous  voyons  percer  I'idee  ou  le  point  de  vue,  que  tout  ce  que  les 
Apotres  savent,  pensent  et  enseignent,  est  au  fond  et  essentielle- 
ment  un  souvenir,  un  reflet  de  ce  qu'ils  ont  vu  et  appris  autrefois, 
une  reproduction  des  legons  et  des  impressions  regues. 


BY    PROFESSOR    HUXLEY.  29 

distinct  from  those  of  subsequent  Christianity, 
yet  it  is  surely  a  mere  paradox  to  maintain  that 
they  did  not  assert,  as  taught  by  their  Master, 
truths  which  an  Agnostic  denies.  They  certainly 
spoke,  as  Paul  did,  of  the  love  of  God  ;  they 
certainly  spoke,  as  Paul  did,  of  Jesus  having 
been  raised  from  the  dead  by  God  the  Father 
(Gal.  i.  1) ;  they  certainly  spoke,  as  Paul  did,  of 
Jesus  Christ  returning  to  judge  the  world ;  they 
certainly  spoke,  as  Paul  did,  of  "  the  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (2  Cor.  xi.  31). 
That  they  could  have  done  this  without  Jesus 
Christ  having  taught  God's  love,  or  having  said 
that  God  was  His  Father,  or  having  declared 
that  He  would  judge  the  world,  is  a  supposition 
which  will  certainly  be  regarded  by  an  over- 
whelming majority  of  reasonable  men  as  a  mere 
paradox ;  and  I  cannot  conceive,  until  he  says 
so,  that  Professor  Huxley  would  maintain  it. 
But  if  so,  then  all  Professor  Huxley's  argu- 
mentation about  the  Gadarene  swine  is  mere 
irrelevance  to  the  argument  he  undertakes  to 
answer.  The  Gospels  might  be  obliterated  as 
evidence  to-morrow,  and  it  w^ould  remain  indis- 
putable that  Jesus  Christ  taught  certain  truths 
respecting  God,  and  man's  relation  to  God,  from 
which  an  Agnostic  withholds  his  assent.  If  so, 
he  does  not  believe  Jesus  Christ's  teachinoj ;  he 


30  ON   A   DEFENCE   OF    AGNOSTICISM 

is  SO  far  an  unbeliever,   and  "  unbeliever,"  Dr 
Johnson  says,  is  an  equivalent  of  "infidel." 

This  consideration  will  indicate  another 
irrelevance  in  Professor  Huxley's  argument. 
He  asks  for  a  definition  of  what  a  Christian  is, 
before  he  will  allow  that  he  can  be  justly  called 
an  infidel.  But  without  being  able  to  give  an 
accurate  definition  of  a  crayfish,  which  perhaps 
only  Professor  Huxley  could  do,  I  may  be  very 
well  able  to  say  that  some  creatures  are  not 
crayfish ;  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  frame  a 
definition  of  a  Christian  in  order  to  say  con- 
fidently that  a  person  who  does  not  believe  the 
broad  and  unquestionable  elements  of  Christ's 
teachings  and  convictions  is  not  a  Christian. 
"Infidel"  or  ** unbeliever"  is,  of  course,  as  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  says,  a  relative  and  not  a  positive 
term.  He  makes  a  great  deal  of  play  out  of 
what  he  seems  to  suppose  will  be  a  very  painful 
and  surprising  consideration  to  myself,  that  to 
a  Mahommedan  I  am  an  infidel.  Of  course  I 
am ;  and  I  should  never  expect  a  Mahommedan, 
if  he  were  called  upon,  as  I  was,  to  argue  before 
an  assembly  of  his  own  fellow-believers,  to  call 
me  anything  else.  Professor  Huxley  is  good 
enough  to  imagine  me  in  his  company  on  a 
visit  to  the  Hazar  Mosque  at  Cairo.  When  he 
entered   that   mosque   without  due   credentials, 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  31 

he  suspects  that,  had  he  understood  Arabic, 
"dog  of  an  infidel"  would  have  been  by  no 
means  the  most  "unpleasant"  of  the  epithets 
showered  upon  him  before  he  could  explain  and 
apologise  for  the  mistake.^  If,  he  says,  "  I  had 
had  the  pleasure  of  Dr  Wace's  company  on  that 
occasion,  the  undiscriminative  followers  of  the 
Prophet  would,  I  am  afraid,  have  made  no 
difference  between  us ;  not  even  if  they  had 
known  that  he  was  the  head  of  an  orthodox 
Christian  seminary."  Probably  not ;  and  I  will 
add  that  I  should  have  felt  very  little  confidence 
in  any  attempts  which  Professor  Huxley  might 
have  made,  in  the  style  of  his  present  article, 
to  protect  me,  by  repudiating  for  himself  the 
unpleasant  epithets  which  he  deprecates.  It 
would,  I  suspect,  have  been  of  very  little  avail 
to  attempt  a  subtle  explanation,  to  one  of  the 
learned  mollahs  of  whom  he  speaks,  that  he 
really  did  not  mean  to  deny  that  there  was  one 
God,  but  only  that  he  did  not  know  anything 
on  the  subject,  and  that  he  desired  to  avoid 
expressing  any  opinion  respecting  the  claims  of 
Mahomet.  It  would  be  plain  to  the  learned 
mollah  that  Professor  Huxley  did  not  believe 
either  of  the  articles  of  the  Mahommedan  creed ; 
in  other  words,  that,  for  all  his  fine  distinctions, 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  234. 


32  ON    A   DEFENCE    OF   AGNOSTICISM 

he  was  at  bottom  a  downriglit  infidel,  such  as  I 
confessed  myself,  and  that  there  was  an  end  of 
the  matter.  There  is  no  fair  way  of  avoiding 
the  plain  matter  of  fact  in  either  case.  A 
Mahommedan  believes  and  asserts  that  there  is 
no  God  but  God,  and  that  Mahomet  is  the 
Prophet  of  God.  I  don't  believe  Mahomet.  In 
the  plain,  blunt,  sensible  phrase  people  used  to 
use  on  such  subjects,  I  believe  he  was  a  false 
prophet,  and  I  am  a  downright  infidel  about 
him.  The  Christian  creed  might  almost  be 
summed  up  in  the  assertion  that  there  is  one, 
and  but  one  God,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  is  His 
Prophet ;  and  whoever  denies  that  creed  says 
that  he  does  not  believe  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom 
it  was  undoubtedly  asserted.  It  is  better  to 
look  facts  in  the  face,  especially  from  a  scientific 
point  of  view.  Whether  Professor  Huxley  is 
justified  in  his  denial  of  that  creed  is  a  further 
question,  which  demands  separate  consideration, 
but  which  was  not,  and  is  not  now,  at  issue. 
All  I  say  is  that  his  position  involves  that  dis- 
belief or  infidelity,  and  that  this  is  a  respon- 
sibility which  must  be  faced  by  agnosticism. 

But  I  am  forced  to  conclude  that  Professor 
Huxley  cannot  have  taken  the  pains  to  under- 
stand the  point  I  raised,  not  only  from  the  irrele- 
vance of  his  argument  on  these  considerations. 


BY   PROFESSOR    HUXLEY.  33 

but  from  a  misquotation  which  the  superior  accu- 
racy of  a  man  of  science  ought  to  have  rendered 
impossible.  Twice  over  in  the  article  ^  he  quotes 
me  as  saying  that  "it  is,  and  it  ought  to  be,  an 
unpleasant  thing  for  a  man  to  have  to  say  plainly 
that  he  does  not  believe  in  Jesus  Christ."  As 
he  winds  up  his  attack  upon  my  paper  by  bring- 
ing against  this  statement  his  rather  favourite 
charge  of  "  immorality  " — and  even  "  most  pro- 
found immorality  "  ^ — he  was  the  more  bound  to 
accuracy  in  his  quotation  of  my  words.  But 
neither  in  the  official  report  of  the  Congress  to 
which  he  refers,  nor  in  any  report  that  I  have 
seen,  is  this  the  statement  attributed  to  me. 
What  I  said,  and  what  I  meant  to  say,  was  that 
it  ought  to  be  an  unpleasant  thing  for  a  man  to 
have  to  say  plainly  "  that  he  does  not  believe 
Jesus  Christ."  By  inserting  the  little  word  "  in," 
Professor  Huxley  has,  by  an  unconscious  ingen- 
uity, shifted  the  import  of  the  statement.  He 
goes  on  ^  to  denounce  "  the  pestilent  doctrine  on 
which  all  the  Churches  have  insisted,  that  honest 
disbelief  in  their  more  or  less  astonishing  creeds 

1  Science  and  CJiristian  Tradition,  pp.  210,  240. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  240.  "That  'it  ouglit  to  be'  unpleasant  for  any 
man  to  say  anything  which  he  sincerely,  and  after  due  delibera- 
tion, believes,  is  to  my  mind  a  proposition  of  the  most  profoundly 
immoral  character." 

3  Ibid.,  p.  240. 

C 


34  ON   A   DEFENCE   OF   AGNOSTICISM 

is  a  moral  offence,  indeed  a  sin  of  the  deepest 
dye."  His  interpretation  exhibits,  in  fact,  the 
idea  in  his  own  mind,  which  he  has  doubtless 
conveyed  to  his  readers,  of  my  having  said  it 
ought  to  be  unpleasant  to  a  man  to  have  to  say 
that  he  does  not  believe  in  the  Christian  creed. 
I  certainly  think  it  ought,  for  reasons  I  will 
mention ;  but  that  is  not  what  I  said.  I  spoke, 
deliberately,  not  of  the  Christian  creed  as  a 
whole,  but  of  Jesus  Christ  as  a  person,  and  re- 
garded as  a  witness  to  certain  primary  truths 
which  an  Agnostic  will  not  acknowledge.  It 
was  a  personal  consideration  to  which  I  appealed, 
and  not  a  dogmatic  one ;  and  I  am  sorry,  for 
that  reason,  that  Professor  Huxley  will  not  allow 
me  to  leave  it  in  the  reserve  with  which  I  hoped 
it  had  been  sufficiently  indicated. 

I  said  that  "  no  criticism  worth  mentioning 
doubts  the  story  of  the  Passion ;  and  that  story 
involves  the  most  solemn  attestation,  again  and 
again,  of  truths  of  which  an  Agnostic  coolly 
says  he  knows  nothing.  An  Agnosticism  which 
knows  nothing  of  the  relation  of  man  to  God 
must  not  only  refuse  belief  to  our  Lord's  most 
undoubted  teaching,  but  must  deny  the  reality 
of  the  spiritual  convictions  in  which  He  lived 
and  died.  It  must  declare  that  His  most  in- 
timate,   most    intense    beliefs,   and    His   dying 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  35 

aspirations,  were  an  illusion.  Is  that  supposi- 
tion tolerable  ? "  I  do  not  think  this  deserves 
to  be  called  *'  a  proposition  of  the  most  pro- 
foundly immoral  character."  I  think  it  ought 
to  be  unpleasant,  and  I  am  sure  it  always  will 
be  unpleasant,  for  a  man  to  listen  to  the  Saviour 
on  the  cross  uttering  such  words  as  "Father, 
into  Thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit,"  and  to 
say  that  they  are  not  to  be  trusted  as  revealing 
a  real  relation  between  the  Saviour  and  God. 
In  spite  of  all  doubts  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the 
Gospels,  Jesus  Christ — I  trust  I  may  be  forgiven, 
under  the  stress  of  controversy,  for  mentioning 
His  sacred  name  in  this  too  familiar  manner — 
is  a  tender  and  sacred  Figure  to  all  thoughtful 
minds,  and  it  is,  it  ought  to  be,  and  it  always 
will  be,  a  very  painful  thing,  to  say  that  He 
lived  and  died  under  a  mistake  in  respect  to  the 
words  which  were  first  and  last  on  His  lips.  I 
think,  as  I  have  admitted,  that  it  should  be  un- 
pleasant for  a  man  who  has  as  much  appreciation 
of  Christianity,  and  of  its  work  in  the  world,  as 
Professor  Huxley  sometimes  shows,  to  have  to 
say  that  its  belief  was  founded  on  no  objective 
reality.  The  unpleasantness,  indeed,  of  deny- 
ing one  system  of  thought  may  be  balanced  by 
the  pleasantness,  as  Professor  Huxley  suggests, 
of  asserting   another   and   a   better   one.      But 


36  ON   A   DEFENCE    OF   AGNOSTICISM 

nothing,  to  all  time,  can  do  away  witli  the  un- 
pleasantness, not  only  of  repudiating  sympathy 
with  the  most  sacred  figure  of  humanity  in  His 
deepest  beliefs  and  feelings,  but  of  pronouncing 
Him  under  an  illusion  in  His  last  agony.  If  that 
be  the  truth,  let  it  by  all  means  be  said ;  but  if 
we  are  to  talk  of  "  immorality  "  in  such  matters, 
I  think  there  must  be  a  lack  of  moral  sensibility 
in  any  man  who  could  say  it  without  pain. 

The  plain  fact  is  that  this  misquotation  would 
have  been  as  impossible  as  a  good  deal  else  of 
Professor  Huxley's  argument,  had  he,  in  any  de- 
gree, appreciated  the  real  strength  of  the  hold 
which  Christianity  has  over  men's  hearts  and 
minds.  The  strength  of  the  Christian  Church, 
in  spite  of  its  faults,  errors,  and  omissions,  is  not 
in  its  creed,  but  in  its  Lord  and  Master.  In 
spite  of  all  the  critics,  the  Gospels  have  conveyed 
to  the  minds  of  millions  of  men  a  living  image 
of  Christ.  They  see  Him  there ;  they  hear  His 
voice  ;  they  listen,  and  they  believe  Him.  It  is 
not  so  much  that  they  accept  certain  doctrines 
as  taught  by  Him,  as  that  they  accept  Him, 
Himself,  as  their  Lord  and  their  God.  The 
sacred  fire  of  trust  in  Him  descended  upon  the 
Apostles,  and  has  from  them  been  handed  on 
from  generation  to  generation.  It  is  with  that 
living  personal  Figure  that  Agnosticism  has  to 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  37 

deal ;  and  as  long  as  the  Gospels  practically  pro- 
duce the  effect  of  making  that  Figure  a  reality 
to  human  hearts,  so  long  will  the  Christian  faith, 
and  the  Christian  Church,  in  their  main  char- 
acteristics, be  vital  and  permanent  forces  in  the 
world.  Professor  Huxley  tells  us,  in  a  melan- 
choly passage,^  that  he  cannot  define  "  the  grand 
figure  of  Jesus."  Who  shall  dare  to  "  define " 
it  ?  But  saints  have  both  written  and  lived  an 
imitatio  Christi,  and  men  and  women  can  feel 
and  know  what  they  cannot  define.  Professor 
Huxley,  it  would  seem,  would  have  us  wait 
coolly  until  we  had  solved  all  critical  difficulties 
before  acting  on  such  a  belief.  "Because,"  he 
says,^  "  we  are  often  obliged,  by  the  pressure  of 
events,  to  act  on  very  bad  evidence,  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  is  proper  to  act  on  such  evidence 
when  the  pressure  is  absent."  Certainly  not ; 
but  it  is  strange  ignorance  of  human  nature  for 
Professor  Huxley  to  imagine  that  there  is  no 
"  pressure  "  in  this  matter.  It  was  a  voice  which 
understood  the  human  heart  better  which  said, 
"  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are 
heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest ; "  and  the 
attraction  of  that  voice  outweighs  many  a  critical 
difficulty,  under  the  pressure  of  the  burdens  and 
the  sins  of  life. 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  229.  ^  ibid.,  p.  243. 


38  ON   A   DEFENCE    OF   AGNOSTICISM 

Professor  Huxley,  indeed,  admits,  in  one  sen- 
tence of  his  article,  the  force  of  this  influence 
on  individuals. 

"  If,"  he  says/  "  a  man  can  find  a  friend,  the  hypos- 
tasis ol  all  his  hopes,  the  mirror  of  his  ethical  ideal,  in 
the  Jesus  of  any,  or  all,  of  the  Gospels,  let  him  live 
by  faith  in  that  ideal.  Who  shall  or  can  forbid  him? 
But  let  him  not  delude  himself  with  the  notion  that 
his  faith  is  evidence  of  the  objective  reality  of  that 
in  which  he  trusts.  Such  evidence  is  to  be  obtained 
only  by  the  use  of  the  methods  of  science,  as  applied 
to  history  and  to  literature,  and  it  amounts  at  present 
to  very  little." 

Well,  a  single  man's  belief  in  an  ideal  may  be 
very  little  evidence  of  its  objective  reality.  But 
the  conviction  of  millions  of  men,  generation 
after  generation,  of  the  veracity  of  the  four 
evangelical  witnesses,  and  of  the  human  and 
divine  reality  of  the  Figure  they  describe,  has  at 
least  something  of  the  weight  of  the  verdict  of 
a  jury.  Securus  judicat  orhis  terrarum.  Prac- 
tically the  Figure  of  Christ  lives.  The  Gospels 
have  created  it ;  and  it  subsists  as  a  personal 
fact  in  life,  alike  among  believers  and  unbelievers. 
Professor  Huxley  himself,  in  spite  of  all  his 
scepticism,  appears  to  have  his  own  type  of  this 
character.  The  apologue  of  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery,  he  says,^  "if  internal  evidence  were  an 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  244.  ^  ii,^^  ^  p,  223. 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  39 

infallible  guide,  might  well  be  affirmed  to  be  a 
typical  example  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus."  In- 
ternal evidence  may  not  be  an  infallible  guide ; 
but  it  certainly  carries  great  weight,  and  no  one 
has  relied  more  upon  it  in  these  questions  than 
the  critics  whom  Professor  Huxley  quotes. 

But  as  I  should  be  sorry  to  imitate  Professor 
Huxley,  on  so  momentous  a  subject,  by  evading 
the  arguments  and  facts  he  alleges,  I  will  consider 
the  question  of  external  evidence  on  which  he 
dwells.  I  must  repeat  that  the  argument  of  my 
paper  is  independent  of  this  controversy.  The 
fact  that  our  Lord  taught  and  believed  what 
Agnostics  ignore  is  not  dependent  on  the  criticism 
of  the  four  Gospels.  In  addition  to  the  general 
evidence  to  which  I  have  alluded,  there  is  a  fur- 
ther consideration  which  Professor  Huxley  feels 
it  necessary  to  mention,  but  which  he  evades  by 
an  extraordinary  inconsequence.  He  alleges  that 
the  story  of  the  Gadarene  swine  involves  fabulous 
matter,  and  that  this  discredits  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  whole  Gospel  record.    But  he  says  :^ — 

"  At  this  point  a  very  obvious  objection  arises,  and 
deserves  full  and  candid  consideration.  It  may  be 
said  that  critical  scepticism  carried  to  the  length  sug- 
gested is  historical  pyrrhonism ;  that  if  we  are  to  alto- 
gether discredit  an  ancient  or  a  modern  historian  be- 


Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  224. 


40  ON   A   DEFENCE   OF   AGNOSTICISM 

cause  he  has  assumed  fabulous  matter  to  be  true,  it 
will  be  as  well  to  give  up  paying  any  attention  to  his- 
tory. ...  Of  course,"  he  acknowledges,  "  this  is 
perfectly  true.  I  am  afraid  there  is  no  man  alive 
whose  witness  could  be  accepted,  if  the  condition 
precedent  were  proof  that  he  had  never  invented  and 
promulgated  a  myth." 

The  question,  then,  which  Professor  Huxley 
himself  raises,  and  which  he  had  to  answer,  was 
this.  Why  is  the  general  evidence  of  the  Gospels, 
on  the  main  facts  of  our  Lord's  life  and  teaching, 
to  be  discredited,  even  if  it  be  true  that  they 
have  invented  or  promulgated  a  myth  about  the 
Gadarene  swine  ?  What  is  his  answer  to  that 
simple  and  broad  question  ?  Strange  to  say, 
absolutely  none  at  all !  He  leaves  this  vital 
question  without  any  answer,  and  goes  back  to 
the  Gadarene  swine.  The  question  he  raises  is 
whether  the  supposed  incredibility  of  the  story 
of  the  Gadarene  swine  involves  the  general  un- 
trustworthiness  of  the  story  of  the  Gospels  ;  and 
his  conclusion  is  that  it  involves  the  incredibility 
of  the  story  of  the  Gadarene  swine.  A  more 
complete  evasion  of  his  own  question  it  would  be 
difficult  to  imagine.  As  Professor  Huxley  almost 
challenges  me  to  state  what  I  think  of  that  story, 
I  have  only  to  say  that  I  fully  believe  it,  and, 
moreover,  that  Professor  Huxley,  in  this  very 
article,  has  removed  the  only  consideration  which 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  41 

would  have  been  a  serious  obstacle  to  my  belief. 
If  he  were  prepared  to  say,  on  his  high  scientific 
authority,  that  the  narrative  involves  a  contra- 
diction of  established  scientific  truth,  I  could  not 
but  defer  to  such  a  decision,  and  I  might  be 
driven  to  consider  those  possibilities  of  interpola- 
tion in  the  narrative,  which  Professor  Huxley  is 
good  enough  to  suggest  to  all  who  feel  the  im- 
probability of  the  story  too  much  for  them.  But 
Professor  Huxley  expressly  says  :  ^  — 

"  I  admit  I  have  no  a  priori  objection  to  offer.  .  .  . 
Por  anything  I  can  absolutely  prove  to  the  contrary, 
there  may  be  spiritual  things  capable  of  the  same 
transmigration,  with  like  effects.  Moreover,  I  am 
bound  to  add  that  perfectly  truthful  persons,  for 
whom  I  have  the  greatest  respect,  believe  in  stories 
abont  spirits  at  the  present  day,  quite  as  improbable 
as  that  we  are  considering.  So  I  declare,  as  plainly 
as  I  can,  that  I  am  unable  to  show  cause  why  these 
transferable  devils  should  not  exist." 

Very  well,  then,  as  the  highest  science  of  the 
day  is  unable  to  show  cause  against  the  possibil- 
ity of  the  narrative,  and  as'  I  regard  the  Gospels 
as  containing  the  evidence  of  trustworthy  persons 
who  were  contemporary  with  the  events  narrated, 
and  as  their  general  veracity  carries  to  my  mind 
the  greatest  possible  weight,  I  accept  their  state- 
ment in  this,  as  in  other  instances.     Professor 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  226. 


42  ON   A   DEFENCE   OF   AGNOSTICISM 

Huxley  ventures  ^  "  to  doubt  whether,  at  this  pres- 
ent moment,  any  Protestant  theologian,  who  has 
a  reputation  to  lose,  will  say  that  he  believes  the 
Gadarene  story."  He  will  judge  whether  I  fall 
under  his  description  ;  but  I  repeat  that  I  believe 
it,  and  that  he  has  removed  the  only  objection  to 
my  believing  it. 

However,  to  turn  finally  to  the  important 
fact  of  external  evidence.  Professor  Huxley 
reiterates,  again  and  again,  that  the  verdict  of 
scientific  criticism  is  decisive  against  the  sup- 
position that  we  possess  in  the  four  Gospels  the 
authentic  and  contemporary  evidence  of  known 
writers.  He  repeats,^  "  without  the  slightest  fear 
of  refutation,  that  the  four  Gospels,  as  they  have 
come  to  us,  are  the  work  of  unknown  writers." 
In  particular,  he  challenges  my  allegation  of 
"  M.  Kenan's  practical  surrender  of  the  adverse 
case " ;  and  he  adds  the  following  observa- 
tions,^ to  which  I  beg  the  reader's  particular 
attention  : — 

"  I  thought,"  he  says,  "  I  knew  M.  Eenan's  works 
pretty  well,  but  I  have  contrived  to  miss  this  '  practi- 
cal' (I  wish  Dr  Wace  had  defined  the  scope  of  that 
useful  adjective)  surrender.  However,  as  Dr  Wace 
can  find  no  difficulty  in  pointing  out  the  passage  of  M. 
Kenan's  writings  by  which  he  feels  justified  in  making 

1  Science  and  Christmn  Tradition,  p.  220. 
2  Ibid.,  p.  222,  note.  ^  i^id.,  p.  213,  note. 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  4^ 

his  statement,  I  shall  wait  for  further  enlightenment,, 
contenting  myself,  for  the  present,  with  remarking 
that  if  M.  Eenan  were  to  retract  and  do  penance  in 
]N"otre  Dame  to-morrow  for  any  contributions  to 
Biblical  criticism  that  may  be  specially  his  property,, 
the  main  results  of  that  criticism,  as  they  are  set 
forth  in  the  works  of  Strauss,  Baur,  Eeuss,  and 
Yolkmar,  for  example,  would  not  be  sensibly  affected." 

Let  me  begin,  then,  by  enlightening  Professor 
Huxley  about  M.  Eenan's  surrender.  I  have  the 
less  difficulty  in  doing  so  as  the  passages  he  has 
contrived  to  miss  have  been  collected  by  me 
already  in  a  little  tract  on  the  '  Authenticity  of 
the  Gospels/^  and  in  some  lectures  on  the 
'  Grospel  and  its  Witnesses ' ;  ^  and  I  shall  take 
the  liberty,  for  convenience'  sake,  of  repeating 
some  of  the  observations  there  made. 

I    beg    first   to   refer   to    the   preface   to   M. 

Eenan's    'Vie    de    Jesus.' ^      There    M.    Eenan 

says  : — 

"  As  to  Luke,  doubt  is  scarcely  possible.  The 
Gospel  of  St  Luke  is  a  regular  composition,  founded 
upon  earlier  documents.  It  is  the  work  of  an  author 
who  chooses,  curtails,  combines.  The  author  of  this 
Gospel  is  certainly  the  same  as  the  author  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles.  Now,  the  author  of  the  Acts  seems- 
to  be  a  companion  of  St  Paul  —  a  character  which 
accords  completely  with  St  Luke.      I  know  that  more 


1  Religious  Tract  Society.  ^  John  Murray,  1884. 

3  Fifteenth  edition,  p.  xlix. 


44  ON   A   DEFENCE    OF   AGNOSTICISM 

than  one  objection  may  be  opposed  to  this  reasoning ; 
but  one  thing  at  all  events  is  beyond  doubt — namely, 
that  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  is 
a  man  who  belonged  to  the  second  apostolic  generation, 
and  this  suffices  for  our  purpose.  The  date  of  this 
Gospel,  moreover,  may  be  determined  with  sufficient 
precision  by  considerations  drawn  from  the  book  itself. 
The  twenty-first  chapter  of  St  Luke,  which  is  in- 
separable from  the  rest  of  the  work,  was  certainly 
written  after  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  but  not  long 
after.  We  are,  therefore,  here  on  solid  ground,  for  we 
are  dealing  w4th  a  work  proceeding  entirely  from  the 
same  hand,  and  possessing  the  most  complete  unity." 

It  may  be  important  to  observe  that  this 
admission  lias  been  supported  by  M.  Eenan's 
further  investigations,  as  expressed  in  his  sub- 
sequent volume  on  *  The  Apostles.'  In  the 
preface  to  that  volume  he  discusses  fully  the 
nature  and  value  of  the  narrative  contained  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  he  pronounces  the 
following  decided  opinions  as  to  the  authorship 
of  that  book,  and  its  connection  with  the  Gospel 
of  St  Luke  (p.  X  sq.)  : — 

"  One  point  which  is  beyond  question  is  that  the 
Acts  are  by  the  same  author  as  the  third  Gospel,  and 
are  a  continuation  of  that  Gospel.  One  need  not 
stop  to  prove  this  proposition,  which  has  never  been 
seriously  contested.  The  prefaces  at  the  commence- 
ment of  each  work,  the  dedication  of  each  to  Theo- 
philus,  the  perfect  resemblance  of  style  and  of  ideas, 
furnish  on  this  point  abundant  demonstrations. 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  45 

"A  second  proposition,  which  has  not  the  same 
certainty,  but  which  may,  however,  be  regarded  as 
extremely  probable,  is  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  is  a 
disciple  of  Paul,  who  accompanied  him  for  a  consider- 
able part  of  his  travels." 

At  a  first  glance,  M.  Renan  observes,  this 
proposition  appears  indubitable,  from  the  fact 
that  the  author,  on  so  many  occasions,  uses  the 
pronoun  "we,"  indicating  that  on  those  occa- 
sions he  was  one  of  the  apostolic  band  by  whom 
St  Paul  was  accompanied.  "  One  may  even  be 
astonished  that  a  proposition  apparently  so  evi- 
dent should  have  found  persons  to  contest  it." 
He  notices,  however,  the  difficulties  which  have 
been  raised  on  the  point,  and  then  proceeds  as 
follows  (p.  xiv)  : — 

"  Must  we  be  checked  by  these  objections  ?  I  think 
not ;  and  I  persist  in  believing  that  the  person  who 
finally  prepared  the  Acts  is  really  the  disciple  of  Paul, 
who  says  '  we '  in  the  last  chapters.  All  difficulties, 
however  insoluble  they  may  appear,  ought  to  be,  if 
not  dismissed,  at  least  held  in  suspense  by  an  argument 
so  decisive  as  that  which  results  from  the  use  of  this 
word  '  we.' " 

He  then  observes  that  MSS.  and  tradition 
combine  in  assigning  the  third  Gospel  to  a 
certain  Luke,  and  that  it  is  scarcely  conceivable 
that  a  name,  in  other  respects  obscure,  should 
have  been  attributed  to  so  important  a  work  for 


46  ON   A    DEFENCE    OF   AGNOSTICISM 

any  other  reason  than  that  it  was  the  name  of 
the  real  author.  Luke,  he  says,  had  no  place  in 
tradition,  in  legend,  or  in  history,  when  these 
two  treatises  were  ascribed  to  him.  M.  Eenan 
concludes  in  the  following  w^ords  :  ''  We  think, 
therefore,  that  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel 
and  of  the  Acts  is  in  all  reality  Luke,  the  disciple 
of  Paul." 

Now,  let  the  import  of  these  expressions  of 
opinion  be  duly  weighed.  Of  course  M.  Kenan's 
judgments  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  affording  in 
themselves  any  adequate  basis  for  our  acceptance 
of  the  authenticity  of  the  chief  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the 
four  Gospels  bear  on  their  face  certain  j)ositive 
claims,  on  the  faith  of  which  they  have  been 
accepted  in  all  ages  of  the  Church ;  and  they  do 
not  rest,  in  the  first  instance,  on  the  authority  of 
any  modern  critic.  But  though  M.  Kenan  would 
be  a  very  unsatisfactory  witness  to  rely  upon  for 
the  purpose  of  positive  testimony  to  the  Gospels, 
his  estimates  of  the  value  of  modern  critical 
objections  to  those  sacred  books  have  all  the 
weight  of  the  admissions  of  a  hostile  witness. 
No  one  doubts  his  familiarity  with  the  whole 
range  of  the  criticism  represented  by  such  names 
as  Strauss  and  Baur,  and  no  one  questions  his 
disposition  to  give  full  weight  to  every  objection 


BY   PROFESSOK    HUXLEY.  47 

which  that  criticism  can  urge.  Even  without 
assuming  that  he  is  prejudiced  on  either  one 
side  or  the  other,  it  will  be  admitted  on  all 
hands  that  he  is  more  favourably  disposed  than 
otherwise  to  such  criticism  as  Professor  Huxley 
relies  on.  When,  therefore,  with  this  full  know- 
ledge of  the  literature  of  the  subject,  such  a 
writer  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  criticism 
in  question  has  entirely  failed  to  make  good  its 
case  on  a  point  like  that  of  the  authorship  of  St 
Luke's  Gospel,  we  are  at  least  justified  in  con- 
cluding that  critical  objections  do  not  possess 
the  weight  which  unbelievers  or  sceptics  are 
wont  to  assign  to  them.  M.  Renan,  in  a  word, 
is  no  adequate  witness  to  the  Gospels ;  but  he 
is  a  very  significant  witness  as  to  the  value  of 
modern  critical  objections  to  them. 

Let  us  pass  to  the  two  other  so-called  ''  synop- 
tical" Gospels.  With  respect  to  St  Matthew,  M. 
Renan  says  in  the  same  preface  ('  Vie  de  Jesus,' 
p.  Ixxxi)  : — 

"  To  sum  up,  I  admit  the  four  canonical  Gospels  as 
serious  documents.  All  go  back  to  the  age  which  fol- 
lowed the  death  of  Jesus  ;  but  their  historical  value  is 
very  diverse.  St  Matthew  evidently  deserves  peculiar 
confidence  for  the  discourses.  Here  are  'the  oracles/ 
the  very  notes  taken  while  the  memory  of  the  instruc- 
tion of  Jesus  was  living  and  definite.  A  kind  of  flash- 
ing brightness  at  once  sweet  and  terrible,  a  divine  force, 


48  ON   A   DEFENCE    OF   AGNOSTICISM 

if  I  may  so  say,  underlies  these  words,  detaches  them 
from  the  context,  and  renders  them  easily  recognisable 
by  the  critic."         ♦ 

In  respect  again  to  St  Mark,  lie  says  (p. 
Ixxxii) : — 

"  The  Gospel  of  St  Mark  is  the  one  of  the  three  Syn- 
optics which  has  remained  the  most  ancient,  the  most 
original,  and  to  which  the  least  of  later  additions  have 
been  made.  The  details  of  fact  possess  in  St  Mark  a 
definiteness  which  we  seek  in  vain  in  the  other  evan- 
gelists. He  is  fond  of  reporting  certain  sayings  of  our 
Lord  in  Syro-Chaldaic.  He  is  full  of  minute  observa- 
tions, proceeding,  beyond  doubt,  from  an  eye-witness. 
There  is  nothing  to  conflict  with  the  supposition  that 
this  eye-witness,  who  had  evidently  followed  Jesus, 
who  had  loved  Him  and  watched  Him  in  close  in- 
timacy, and  who  had  preserved  a  vivid  image  of  Him, 
was  the  Apostle  Peter  himself,  as  Papias  has  it." 

I  call  these  admissions  a  "practical  surrender" 
of  the  adverse  case,  as  stated  by  critics  like 
Strauss  and  Baur,  who  denied  that  we  had  in 
the  Gospels  contemporary  evidence ;  and  I  do 
not  think  it  necessary  to  define  the  adjective  in 
order  to  please  Professor  Huxley's  appetite  for 
definitions.  At  the  very  least,  it  is  a  direct 
contradiction  of  Professor  Huxley's  statement 
(p.  222)  that  we  know  ''  absolutely  nothing  "  of 
"  the  originator  or  originators  "  of  the  narratives 
in  the  first  three  Gospels  ;  and  it  is  an  equally 


BY   PROFESSOR    HUXLEY.  49 

direct  contradiction  of  the  assumption,  on  which 
his  main  reply  to  my  paper  is  based,  that  we 
have  no  trustworthy  evidence  of  what  our  Lord 
tausfht  and  believed/ 

But  Professor  Huxley  seems  to  have  been  ap- 
prehensive that  M.  Eenan  would  fail  him,  for  he 
proceeds,  in  the  passage  I  have  quoted,  to  throw 
him  over,  and  to  take  refuge  behind  "  the  main 
results  of  Biblical  criticism,  as  they  are  set  forth 

1  Professor  Huxley  in  a  further  rejoinder,  reprinted  in  '  Science 
and  Christian  Tradition,'  p.  355,  charges  me  with  unfairness  for 
not  mentioning  that  in  '  Les  Evangiles,'  published  one  year  after 
the  edition  of  the  '  Vie  de  Jesus '  from  which  I  was  quoting,  M. 
Renan  uses  some  disparaging  expressions  respecting  the  historic 
value  of  the  Gospels,  and  particularly  of  St  Luke  ;  saying,  for 
instance,  that  "  the  historic  value  of  the  third  Gospel  is  certainly 
less  than  that  of  the  two  first "  ('  fivangiles,'  p.  283).  But,  as  a 
matter  of  fairness,  why  did  Professor  Huxley  omit  to  add  the  next 
sentence — "  At  the  same  time,  a  comparison  between  the  Gospel 
of  St  Luke  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  leads  to  one  remarkable 
fact,  which  proves  {qui  prouve  hien)  that  the  so-called  Synoptic 
Gospels  contain  really  an  echo  of  the  language  of  Jesus," — the 
very  point  on  which  Professor  Huxley  says  we  cannot  rely  1  As 
to  M.  Renan's  successive  volumes,  it  is  well  known  that  a  char- 
acteristic feature  of  that  writer  was  his  variation  of  opinion  on 
critical  points.  But  he  never  withdrew  the  passages  quoted  by 
me  from  the  '  Vie  de  Jesus ' ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  date,  imprints 
of  the  'Vie  de  Jesus,'  with  the  quoted  passages,  were  issued 
after  '  Les  Evangiles.'  But  these  trivialities  are  independent 
of  the  practical  point.  Professor  Huxley  said  that  we  know 
"  absolutely  nothing  "  of  the  authors  of  the  Gospels.  M.  Renan 
says,  at  least,  that  we  know  a  good  deal.  He  allows  that  the 
Gospels  contain  traditions  written  down  by  contemporaries.  He 
distrusts  these  contemporaries  in  some  points ;  but  he  trusted 
them  well  enough  to  compose  a  '  Vie  de  Jesus '  out  of  them. 

D 


50  ON   A   DEFENCE   OF   AGNOSTICISM 

in  the  works  of  Strauss,  Baur,  Eeuss,  and  Yolk- 
mar,  for  example."  It  is  scarcely  comprehensible 
how  a  writer,  who  has  acquaintance  enough  with 
this  subject  to  venture  on  Professor  Huxley's 
sweeping  assertions,  can  have  ventured  to  couple 
together  those  four  names  for  such  a  purpose. 
"  Strauss,  Baur,  Eeuss,  and  Yolkmar  "  !  Why, 
they  are  absolutely  destructive  of  one  another  ! 
Baur  rejected  Strauss's  theory  and  set  up  one  of 
his  own ;  while  Reuss  and  Volkmar  in  their  turn 
have  each  dealt  fatal  blows  at  Baur's.  As  to 
Strauss,  I  need  not  spend  more  time  on  him  than 
to  quote  the  sentence  in  which  Baur  himself  puts 
him  out  of  court  on  this  particular  controversy. 
He  says,^  "  The  chief  j)eculiarity  of  Strauss's 
work  is,  that  it  is  a  criticism  of  the  Gospel  his- 
tory without  a  criticism  of  the  Gospels."  Strauss, 
in  fact,  explained  the  miraculous  stories  in  the 
Gospels  by  resolving  them  into  myths,  and  it 
was  of  no  importance  to  his  theory  how  the 
documents  originated.  But  Baur  endeavoured, 
by  a  minute  criticism  of  the  Gospels  themselves, 
to  investigate  the  historical  circumstances  of 
their  origin  ;  and  he  maintained  that  they  were 
TendenZ'Schriften,  compiled  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, with  polemical  purposes.     Volkmar,  how- 

1  Kritische  Untersuchungen  iiber  die  kanonischen  Evangelien, 
1847,  p.  41. 


BY    PROFESSOE    HUXLEY.  51 

ever,  is  in  direct  conflict  with  Baur  on  this  point, 
and  in  the  very  work  to  which  Professor  Huxley 
refers,^  he  enumerates  (p.  18)  among  "  the  writ- 
ten testimonies  of  the  first  century" — besides  St 
Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Corinthians,  and 
Komans,  and  the  Apocalypse  of  St  John — •'  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  according 
to  John  Mark  of  Jerusalem,  written  a  few  years 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  between  the 
years  70  and  80  of  our  reckoning — about  75; 
probably,  to  be  precise,  about  73,"  and  he  pro- 
ceeds to  give  a  detailed  account  of  it,  "according 
to  the  oldest  text,  and  particularly  the  Vatican 
text,"  as  indispensable  to  his  account  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  He  treats  it  as  written  (p.  174)  either 
by  John  Mark  of  Jerusalem  himself,  or  by  a 
younger  friend  of  his.  Baur,  therefore,  having 
upset  Strauss,  Volkmar  proceeds  to  upset  Baur ; 
and  what  does  Eeuss  do  ?  I  quote  again  from 
that  splendid  French  edition  of  the  Bible  on 
which  Professor  Huxley  so  much  relies.  On  p. 
88  of  Reuss's  Introduction  to  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels, he  sums  up  "  the  results  he  believes  to 
have  been  obtained  by  critical  analysis  "  under 
thirteen  heads  ;  and  the  following  are  some  of 
them  : — 

"2.   Of  the  three  Synoptic  Gospels,  one  only,  that 
1  Jesus  Nazarerms  unci  die  erste  christliche  Zeit,  1882. 


52  ON   A   DEFENCE   OF   AGNOSTICISM 

which  ecclesiastical  tradition  agrees  in  attributing  to 
Luke,  has  reached  us  in  its  primitive  form. 

"  3.  Luke  could  draw  his  knowledge  of  the  Gospel 
history  partly  from  oral  information ;  he  was  able,  in 
Palestine  itself,  to  receive  direct  communications  from 
immediate  witnesses.  ...  We  may  think  especially 
here  of  the  history  of  the  passion  and  the  resurrection, 
and  perhaps  also  of  some  other  passages  of  which  he 
is  the  sole  narrator.     .     .     . 

"  4.  A  book  which  an  ancient  and  respectable 
testimony  attributes  to  Mark,  the  disciple  of  Peter, 
was  certainly  used  by  St  Luke  as  the  principal  source 
of  the  portion  of  his  Gospel  between  chap.  iv.  3 1  and 
ix.  50,  and  between  xviii.  15  and  xxi.  38.     .     .     . 

"  5.  According  to  all  probability,  the  book  of  Mark, 
consulted  by  Luke,  comprised  in  its  primitive  form 
what  we  read  in  the  present  day  from  Mark  i.  21  to 
xiii.  37."' 

It  seems  unnecessary,  for  the  purpose  of  esti- 
mating the  value  of  Professor  Huxley's  appeal 

1  As  Professor  Huxley,  in  a  subsequent  article  ('  Science  and 
Christian  Tradition,'  p.  264),  warns  his  readers  "  against  any  re- 
liance upon  Dr  Wace's  statements  as  to  the  results  arrived  at  by 
modern  criticism,"  I  subjoin,  at  the  end  of  this  article,  the  whole 
text  of  the  summary  given  by  Reuss,  in  the  passage  above  referred 
to,  of  the  results  at  which  he  arrived.  '  The  reader  will  thus  be  able 
to  judge  with  what  justice  so  magisterial  a  sentence  is  pronounced. 
I  presume  that  reliance  may  be  placed  on  Reuss's  own  statement 
of  Reuss's  conclusions  ;  and  he  appears  to  be  Professor  Huxley's 
favourite  commentator.  Thus,  in  the  note  on  p.  294  of  '  Science 
and  Hebrew  Tradition,'  Professor  Huxley  says  :  "  As  Reuss  ap- 
pears to  me  to  be  one  of  the  most  learned,  acute,  and  fair-minded 
of  those  whose  works  I  have  studied,  I  have  made  most  use  of  the 
commentary  and  dissertations  in  his  splendid  French  edition  of 
the  Bible."     It  is  from  that  edition  that  my  quotations  are  made. 


BY   PEOFESSOR   HUXLEY.  53 

to  these  critics,  to  quote  any  more.  It  appears 
from  these  statements  of  Eenss  that  if  "  the 
results  of  Biblical  criticism,"  as  represented  by 
him,  are  to  be  trusted,  we  have  the  whole  third 
Gospel  in  its  primitive  form,  as  it  was  written 
by  St  Luke  ;  and  in  this,  as  we  have  seen,  Reuss 
is  in  entire  agreement  with  Kenan's  judgment  in 
the  '  Vie  de  Jesus.'  But  besides  this,  a  previous 
book  written  by  Mark,  St  Peter's  disciple,  was 
certainly  in  existence  before  Luke's  Grospel,  and 
was  used  by  Luke ;  and  in  all  probability  this 
book  was,  in  its  primitive  form,  our  present 
Gospel  of  St  Mark,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
verses  at  the  beginning  and  end. 

Such  are  those  "  results  of  Biblical  criticism  " 
to  which  Professor  Huxley  has  appealed ;  and 
we  may  fairly  judge  by  these,  not  only  of  the 
value  of  his  special  contention  in  reply  to  my 
paper,  but  of  the  worth  of  the  sweeping  asser- 
tions he,  and  writers  like  him,  are  given  to 
making  about  modern  critical  science.  Professor 
Huxley  says  that  we  know  "  absolutely  nothing  " 
about  the  originators  of  the  Gospel  narratives, 
and  he  appeals  to  criticism  in  the  persons  of 
Yolkmar  and  Reuss.  Yolkmar  says  that  the 
second  Gospel  is  really  either  by  St  Mark  or  by 
one  of  his  friends,  and  was  written  about  the 
year  75.     Reuss  says  that  the  third  Gospel,  as 


54  ON   A   DEFENCE   OF    AGNOSTICISM 

we  now  have  it,  was  really  by  St  Luke.  Now, 
Professor  Huxley  is,  of  course,  entitled  to  his 
own  opinion ;  but  he  is  not  entitled  to  quote 
authorities  in  support  of  his  opinion  when  they 
are  in  direct  opposition  to  it.  He  asserts,  "  with- 
out the  slightest  fear  of  refutation,  that  the 
four  Gospels,  as  they  have  come  to  us,  are  the 
work  of  unknown  writers."  His  arguments  in 
defence  of  such  a  position  will  be  listened  to 
with  respect ;  but  let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  opposite  arguments  he  has  got  to  meet  are 
not  only  those  of  orthodox  critics  like  myself, 
but  those  of  Eenan,  of  Volkmar,  and  of  Eeuss — 
I  may  add  of  Pfleiderer,  well  known  in  this 
country  by  his  Hibbert  Lectures,  who,  in  his 
recent  work  on  original  Christianity,^  attributes 
most  positively  the  second  Gospel  in  its  present 

1  '  Das  Urchristentlium,'  von  Otto  Pfleiderer  :  Berlin,  1887,  p. 
414  :  "  As  to  the  composition  of  this  Gospel  [St  Mark's]  nothing 
tells  against,  and  everything  tells  for,  the  correctness  of  the 
ecclesiastical  tradition  which  has  from  the  first  assigned  it  to 
the  John  Mark  who  is  known  to  us  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  Epistles  of  St  Paul."  Again,  on  p.  416  :  "It  is  further 
to  be  observed  that  in  our  canonical  Gospel  of  St  Mark  we  have 
before  us  the  original  work  of  the  evangelist,  leaving  out  of 
account  detached  interpolations,  such  as  are  to  be  found  in  all 
ancient  literature.  For  the  assumption  of  an  Urmarcus  (or 
original  Mark)  substantially  different  from  the  canonical  book, 
there  is  no  ground  whatever.  On  the  contrary,  our  Gospel  of  St 
Mark  is  a  work  from  one  fount,  written  in  an  individual  style, 
and  well  arranged  in  accordance  with  an  individual,  a  clear,  and 
a  lucid  order." 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  55 

form  to  St  Mark,  and  declares  that  there  is  no 
ground  whatever  for  that  supposition  of  an  Ur- 
marcus — that  is,  an  original  groundwork — from 
which  Professor  Huxley  alleges  that  "  at  the 
present  time  there  is  no  visible  escape." 

If  I  were  such  an  authority  on  morality  as 
Professor  Huxley,  I  might  perhaps  use  some  un- 
pleasant language  respecting  this  vague  assump- 
tion of  criticism  being  all  on  his  side,  when  it,  in 
fact,  directly  contradicts  him  ;  and  his  case  is  not 
the  only  one  to  which  such  strictures  might  be 
applied.  In  *  Robert  Elsmere,'  for  example,  there 
is  some  vapouring  about  the  "  great  critical  oper- 
ation of  the  present  century  "  having  destroyed 
the  historical  basis  of  the  Gospel  narrative.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  as  we  have  seen,  the  great 
critical  operation  has  resulted,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  the  critics  whom  Professor  Huxley 
himself  selects,  in  establishing  the  fact  that  we 
possess  contemporary  records  of  our  Lord's  life 
from  persons  who  were  either  eye-witnesses, 
or  who  were  in  direct  communication  with  eye- 
witnesses on  the  very  scene  in  which  it  was 
passed.  Either  Professor  Huxley's  own  witnesses 
are  not  to  be  trusted,  or  Professor  Huxley's  alle- 
gations are  rash  and  unfounded.  Conclusions 
which  are  denied  by  Yolkmar,  denied  by  Kenan, 
denied  by  Reuss,  are  not  to  be  thrown  at  our 


56  ON   A   DEFENCE    OF   AGNOSTICISM 

heads  with  a  superior  air,  as  if  they  could  not 
reasonably  be  doubted.  The  great  result  of  the 
*' critical*  operation  of  this  century"  has,  in  fact, 
been  to  prove  that  the  contention  with  which 
it  started  in  the  persons  of  Strauss  and  Baur, 
that  we  have  no  contemporary  records  of  Christ's 
life,  is  wholly  untenable.  It  has  not  convinced 
any  of  the  living  critics  to  whom  Professor 
Huxley  appeals  ;  and  if  he,  or  any  similar  writer, 
still  maintains  siich  an  assertion,  let  it  be  under- 
stood that  he  stands  alone  against  the  leading 
critics  of  Europe  in  the  present  day. 

Perhaps  I  need  say  no  more  for  the  present 
in  reply  to  Professor  Huxley.  I  have,  I  think, 
shown  that  he  has  evaded  my  point;  he  has 
evaded  his  own  points  ;  he  has  misquoted  my 
words  ;  he  has  misrepresented  the  results  of  the 
very  criticism  to  which  he  appeals  ;  and  he  rests 
his  case  on  assumptions  which  his  own  author- 
ities repudiate.  The  questions  he  touches  are 
very  grave  ones,  not  to  be  adequately  treated 
in  a  Eeview  article.  But  I  should  have  supposed 
it  a  point  of  scientific  morality  to  treat  them,  if 
they  are  to  be  treated,  with  accuracy  of  reference 
and  strictness  of  argument. 

Note. — Subjoined  is  the  full  text  of  M.  Reuss's  conclu- 
sions referred  to  in  the  above  article  ('  Histoire  Evangelique, 
p.  88):-_ 

"  Arrive  au  terme  de  notre  analyse  critique,  il  ne  nous 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  57 

reste  plus  qu'a  resumer  en  quelques  mots  les  resultats  que 
nous  croyons  avoir  obtenus  : 

"  1°.  La  plupart  des  systemes  imagines  autrefois  pour 
expliquer  les  ra]3ports  d'origine  et  de  d^pendance  de  nos 
trois  premiers  evangiles  ont  manque  leur  but,  parcequ'ils  ne 
prenaient  en  consideration  que  les  livres  tels  que  nous  les 
possedons  aujourd'hui. 

"  2°.  Des  trois  evangiles  synoptiques,  un  seul,  celui  que 
la  tradition  ecclesiastique  s'accorde  a  attribuer  a  Luc,  nous 
est  parvenu  dans  sa  forme  primitive. 

"  3°.  Luc  a  pu  puiser  sa  connaissance  de  I'histoire  evan- 
gelique,  en  partie  dans  les  renseignements  que  lui  fournissait 
la  tradition  orale ;  il  a  pu,  en  Palestine  meme,  recevoir  des 
communications  direct  de  temoins  imm^diats.  II  est  im- 
possible de  dire  quelles  parties  ou  quels  (Elements  de  son 
ouvrage  sont  puises  a  cette  source ;  cependant  nous  pouvons 
songer  ici  de  preference  a  I'histoire  de  la  passion  et  de  la 
resurrection,  peut-etre  aussi  a  quelques  autres  morceaux  pour 
lesquels  il  est  le  seul  narrateur,  ou  dans  lesquels  11  se  separe 
des  autres  evang^listes — par  exemple,  chap.  v.  1-11  ;  vii. 
1-17,  36-50;   xix.   1-27. 

"  4°.  Un  livre  qu'un  temoignage  ancien  et  respectable 
attribue  a  Marc,  disciple  de  Pierre,  a  positivement  servi  h 
Luc  de  source  principale  pour  la  partie  comprise  entre  chap. 
iv.  31 -ix.  50  et  entre  xviii.  15  et  xxi.  38,  sauf  les  excep- 
tions mentionnes  tout  k  I'heure. 

"  5°.  Selon  toute  probabilite,  le  livre  de  Marc,  consulte 
par  Luc,  a  compris  dans  sa  forme  primitive  ce  que  nous 
lisons  aujourd'hui  Marc  i.  21-xiii.  37.  L'histoire  de  la 
passion  qui  forme  les  trois  derniers  chapitres  de  I'evangile 
dans  sa  forme  actuelle,  n'a  pas  passe  sous  les  yeux  de  Luc. 
II  en  est  de  meme  des  recits  compris  entre  chap.  vi.  47  et  viii. 
26.  Ces  parties  peuvent  bien  provenir  de  Tauteur  meme, 
mais  dans  ce  cas  celui-ci  ne  les  aurait  ajoutees  qu'apres  que 
des  exemplaires  incomplets  etaient  deja  repandus  dans  le 
public. 

"  6°.  L'histoire  de  la  passion,  dans  le  second  evangile,  ou 
si  Ton  veut,  ce  livre  lui-meme  dans  sa  forme  plus  complete, 
s'arretait  au  huitieme  verset  du  xvi®  chapitre. 


58  ON   A   DEFENCE    OF    AGNOSTICISM 

"7°.  A  cote  du  livre  de  Marc,  et  peut-etre  plus  ancienne- 
ment  deja,  il  en  existait  un  autre  ecrit  par  Matthieu,  I'un 
des  douze  Apotres.  Ce  livre  ^tait  un  recueil  de  sentences  ou 
maximes  et  autres  enseignements  de  Jesus.  D'apr^s  un 
ancien  temoignage,  ce  recueil  aurait  existe  d'abord  en  liebreu. 
Quoi  qu'il  en  sort,  les  ^vangelistes  qui,  plus  tard,  I'ont  mis  k 
profit,  ont  eu  devant  eux  un  texte  grec.  II  est  possible  et 
memo  probable  qu'il  a  exists  au  moins  deux  editions  de  ce 
texte  grec. 

"  S°.  C'est  avec  le  secours  de  ce  Eecueil  de  Matthieu  et 
du  livre  de  Marc  (i.  21-xv.  8)  qu'un  ecrivain  inconnu  a 
redige  I'ouvrage  que  nous  appelons  aujourd'hui  I'evangile 
selon  Matthieu.  Ce  nom  se  justifie  en  tant  que  probable- 
ment  I'ancien  ouvrage  de  cet  apotre  s'y  retrouve,  si  ce  n'est 
en  entier,  du  moins  dans  ses  elements  essentiels.  II  se  pent 
fort  bien  que  cet  ecrivain  ait  pu  completer  ses  materiaux  au 
moyen  de  la  tradition  orale.  Cela  s'appliquerait  surtout  aux 
premiers  chapitres  de  son  livre,  ainsi  qu'aux  additions  qu'il 
fait  k  I'histoire  de  la  passion. 

"  9°.  Luc  n'a  pas  connu  cet  evangile  dit  selon  Matthieu, 
mais  il  a  eu  ^  sa  disposition  I'ancien  Eecueil  de  1' Apotre  et  a 
pu  y  puiser  la  majeure  partie  de  ceux  de  ses  materiaux  qui 
ne  se  trouvaient  point  dans  le  livre  de  IMarc.  Cependant  il 
parait  qu'il  a  eu  en  main  une  autre  Edition  de  cet  ouvrage, 
que  celle  dont  s'est  servi  le  r^dacteur  de  notre  premier 
evangile. 

"  10°.  Cependant  tons  les  elements  de  I'ouvrage  de  Luc 
de  d-oivent  pas  etre  derives  des  differentes  sources  que  nous 
avons  distinguees  jusqu'ici.  Ainsi,  il  est  vraisemblable  que 
la  partie  du  r^cit  qui  concerne  la  naissance  de  Jean  Baptiste 
et  de  Jesus  est  parvenue  k  Luc  dans  une  forme  deja  plus  ou 
moins  lix^e  par  la  redaction  ecrite. 

"  11°.  Le  morceau  Marc  i.  1-20  est  une  introduction 
ajout^e  au  livre  de]k  complete  par  I'histoire  de  la  passion,  et 
redigee  par  quelqu'un  qui  a  pu  et  du  se  servir,  a  cet  effet, 
de  nos  evangiles  actuels  de  Matthieu  et  de  Luc. 

"  12°.  Le  livre  de  Marc  ainsi  complete  (i.  1-xvi.  8)  a 
re^u  plus  tard  diverse  additions  finales,  destinees  a  lui 
donner  une  fin  moins  abrupte.     Les  douze  derniers  versets 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  5& 

que  nous  y  lisons  maintenant  (v.  9-20)  manquaient  encore 
au  quatrieme  siccle  a  beaucoup  d'exemplaires,  et  ont  ^t^ 
redig^s  par  quelqu'un  qui  a  pu  et  dt  se  servir  a  cet  efFet  des 
evangiles  de  Luc  et  de  Jean  et  des  Actes  des  Apotres. 

"  13°.  Ainsi,  dans  un  certain  sens,  chacun  de  nos  trois 
evangiles  a  ete  I'une  des  sources  d'un  autre.  Marc  I'a  ete 
pour  notre  Matthieu  et  pour  Luc;  Luc  et  Matthieu  I'ont 
et^  pour  Marc,  bien  entendu,  en  tant  qu'il  s'agit  de  la  forme 
actuelle  de  celui-ci.  La  critique  s'est  ^garee  en  donnant  une 
valeur  absolue  a  des  observations  justes  a  I'egard  de  certains 
elements.  Elle  s'est  surtout  trompee  en  admettant  que 
I'auteur  du  troisieme  evangile  a  puise  dans  le  premier,  tandis 
qu'il  fallait  dire  qu'il  a  eu  ses  deux  sources  principales  en 
commun  avec  le  redacteur  de  celui-ci,  mais  que  chacun  d'eux 
les  a  connues  sous  une  autre  forme." 

The  reader  will  thus  see  that  Eeuss's  opinion,  formed  on 
j)urely  critical  grounds,  of  the  value  of  the  first  three  Gospels, 
as  authentic  records  from  the  hands  of  those  whose  names 
they  have  always  borne,  is  higher  than  that  of  M.  Eenan. 
The  Gospel  of  St  Luke,  he  believes,  has  come  down  to  us 
as  Luke  wrote  it,  and  he  had  the  use  of  written  documents 
which  are  incorporated  in  the  other  two  Gospels.  Ey  far 
the  greater  part  of  our  present  second  Gospel  is  one  of  the 
very  documents  which  St  Luke  used,  and  was  written  by  St 
Mark,  and  the  very  memoirs  of  the  apostle  Matthew  are  in- 
corporated in  our  first  Gospel.  Yet,  in  the  face  of  all  this. 
Professor  Huxley  appeals  to  "  the  main  results  "  of  modern 
criticism,  as  represented  by  the  works  of  Eeuss  among  others, 
in  support  of  his  statement  that  we  know  "  absolutely 
"nothing  "  of  the  "  originator  or  originators  "  of  the  Gospels  ! 
Is  it  my  account  of  the  results  of  that  criticism,  or  his  own, 
which  deserves  to  be  called  "  as  gravely  as  surprisingly 
erroneous  "  ? 

As  to  the  substance  of  Eeuss's  conclusions,  it  seems  natural 
to  ask  why  the  few  verses  which,  with  many  sound  critics, 
he  supposes  to  have  been  added  at  the  beginning  and  end  of 
the  original  draft  of  St  Mark's  Gospel,  or  to  St  Matthew's 
original  memoirs,  should  be  attributed  to  "unknown  writers" 
instead  of  to  the  evangelists  themselves.     A  man  who  con- 


60  ON   A   DEFENCE   OF   AGNOSTICISM 

fessedly  wrote  three-quarters  of  a  book  may  be  accepted  as  a 
vera  causa  for  the  remainder ;  but  critics  seem  to  forget  that 
*'  unknown  writers  "  are  b}'-  the  hypothesis  unknown. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  compare  with  Reuss's  conclusions 
those  which  are  maintained  in  a  very  remarkable  work  by 
an  independent  English  writer,  the  late  Mr  James  Smith  of 
Jordanhill,  F.R.S.,  the  author  of  the  important  work  on  the 
voyage  and  shipwreck  of  St  Paul.  He  adduces  very  strong 
evidence  to  show  that  many  of  the  variations  in  language 
between  the  evangelists  are  fully  explained  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  their  having  translated  from  Aramaic  memoirs  into 
Greek — a  possibility  which  Reuss  does  not  seem  to  make 
much  allowance  for,  but  which  has  recently  received  strong 
support  both  in  England  and  Germany  (see  '  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible,'  second  edition,  1893,  Dr  Sanday's  art.  "  Gospels," 
vol.  i.  pp.  1242,  1243). 

Taking  this  into  account,  Mr  Smith  states,  as  follows,  the 
conclusions  to  which  he  was  led,  "  from  the  evidence  fur- 
nished by  the  writings  of  the  evangelists,  and  other  ancient 
writers,  respecting  the  origin  and  connection  of  the  Gospels  " 
("Dissertation  on  the  Origin  and  Connection  of  the  Gospels," 
p.  xxv)  : — 

**  1st.  Several  of  the  apostles,  including  Matthew,  Peter, 
and  John,  committed  to  writing  accounts  of  the  transactions 
of  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  in  the  language  spoken  by 
them — i.e.,  Syro-Chaldaic  oi*  Aramaic,  known  in  the  New 
Testament  and  the  works  of  the  Fathers  as  Hebrew. 

"  2d.  When  the  apostles  were  driven  by  persecution  from 
Juda3a,  a  history  of  the  life  of  our  Lord  was  drawn  up  from 
the  original  memoirs,  in  Hebrew  and  in  Greek,  by  the 
apostle  Matthew,  for  the  use  of  the  Jewish  converts — the 
Greek  being  the  same  as  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew. 

"  3d.  St  Luke  drew  up,  for  the  use  of  Theophilus,  a  new 
life  of  our  Lord,  founded  upon  the  authority  of  eye-witnesses 
and  ministers  of  the  Word — including  the  Hebrew  memoir 
of,  Peter  and  the  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew. 

"4th.  After  Peter's  death  or  departure  from  Rome  {^^o'^ov), 
St  Mark  translated  the  memoir,  written  by  Peter,  into  Greek. 

"  5th.   John,  at  a  still  later  period,  composed  his  Gospel 


BY   PROFESSOR   HUXLEY.  61 

from  his  own  original  memoirs,  omitting  much  that  was 
already  narrated  by  the  other  evangelists,  for  reasons  assigned 
by  himself— (xxi.  23)." 

Taking  into  account  the  additional  considerations  intro- 
duced by  the  supposition  of  Aramaic  originals,  there  is  a  re- 
markable general  similarity  between  Mr  Smith's  conclusions 
and  those  of  M.  Reuss.  The  late  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  in  re- 
editing  a  few  years  ago  Mr  Smith's  work  on  St  Paul's 
voyage,  expressed  a  just  surprise  at  the  present  neglect  of 
this  admirable  writer.  His  works  deserve  a  great  deal  more 
attention  than  most  of  the  German  criticism  which  receives 
such  excessive  deference. 


62 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  AGNOSTICISM.' 

Professor  Huxley  published  a  Rejoinder  to  the  previous 
article  in  the  '  Nineteenth  Century '  for  April  1889  ;  and  it 
is  reprinted  in  'Science  and  Christian  Tradition'  at  p.  263, 
sq.  He  commences  with  a  reference  to  an  article  by  Mrs 
Humphry  Ward  in  the  same  number  as  mine,  and  to  her 
article  reference  will  be  found  further  on.  He  then,  after 
some  reference  to  a  personal  question  of  mere  temporary 
interest,  proceeds  with  the  reflections  on  myself  and  English 
theologians  to  which  the  first  paragraph  of  the  following 
article  replies. 

Eeaders  who  may  be  willing  to  look  at  this 
further  reply  on  my  part  to  Professor  Huxley, 
need  not  be  apprehensive  of  being  entangled  in 
any  such  obscure  points  of  Church  history  as  those 
with  which  the  Professor  has  found  it  necessary 
to  perplex  them  in  support  of  his  contentions ; 
still  less  of  being  troubled  with  any  personal 
explanations.  The  tone  which  Professor  Huxley 
has  thought  fit  to  adopt,  not  only  towards  my- 
self, but  towards  English  theologians  in  general, 

1  From  the  '  Nineteenth  Century,'  May  1889. 


CHRISTIANITY    AND   AGNOSTICISM.  63 

excuses  me  from  taking  further  notice  of  any 
personal  considerations  in  the  matter.  I  en- 
deavoured to  treat  him  with  the  respect  due  to 
his  great  scientific  position,  and  he  replies  by 
sneering  at  theologians  who  are  "  mere  counsel 
for  creeds,"  saying  that  the  serious  question  at 
issue  "  is  whether  theological  men  of  science,  or 
theological  special  pleaders,  are  to  have  the  con- 
fidence of  the  general  public,"  observing  that 
Holland  and  Germany  are  "  the  only  two 
countries  in  which,  at  the  present  time,  pro- 
fessors of  theology  are  to  be  found,  whose  tenure 
of  their  posts  does  not  depend  upon  the  results 
to  which  their  inquiries  lead  them,"  and  thus  in- 
sinuating that  English  theologians  are  debarred 
by  selfish  interests  from  candid  inquiry.^    I  shall 

1  The  following  are  the  passages  in  Professor  Huxley's  article 
which  are  here  referred  to  : — 

"  Those  who  passed  from  Dr  Wace's  article  in  the  last  number 
of  the  '  Nineteenth  Century '  to  the  anticipatory  confutation  of  it 
which  followed  in  '  The  New  Reformation,'  must  have  enjoyed  the 
pleasure  of  a  dramatic  surprise — just  as  when  the  fifth  act  of  a  new 
play  proves  unexpectedly  bright  and  interesting.  Mrs  Ward  will, 
I  hope,  pardon  the  comparison,  if  I  say  that  her  effective  clearing 
away  of  antiquated  incumbrances  from  the  lists  of  the  controversy 
reminds  me  of  nothing  so  much  as  of  the  action  of  some  neat- 
handed,  but  strong-wristed,  Phyllis,  who,  gracefully  wielding  her 
long-handled  '  Turk's  head,'  sweeps  away  the  accumulated  results 
of  the  toil  of  generations  of  spiders,  I  am  the  more  indebted  to 
this  luminous  sketch  of  the  results  of  critical  investigation,  as  it 
is  carried  out  among  those  theologians  who  are  men  of  science 
and  not  mere  counsel  for  creeds,  since  it  has  relieved  me  from 


TO  CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM. 

presently  liave  something  to  say  on  the  grave 
misrepresentation  of  German  theology  which 
these  insinuations  involve  ;  but  for  myself  and 

the  necessity  of  dealing  with  the  greater  part  of  Dr  Wace's 
polemic,  and  enables  me  to  devote  more  space  to  the  really  im- 
portant issues  which  have  been  raised.     .     .     . 

"  I  believe  that  there  is  not  a  solitary  argument  I  have  used, 
or  that  I  am  about  to  use,  which  is  original,  or  has  anything  to 
do  with  the  fact  that  I  have  been  chiefly  occupied  with  natural 
science.  They  are  all,  facts  and  reasoning  alike,  either  identical 
with,  or  consequential  upon,  propositions  which  are  to  be  found 
in  the  works  of  scholars  and  theologians  of  the  highest  repute  in 
the  only  two  countries,  Holland  and  Germany,^  in  which,  at  the 
present  time,  professors  of  theology  are  to  be  found,  whose  tenure 
of  their  posts  does  not  depend  upon  the  results  to  which  their 
inquiries  lead  them.^     .     .     . 

"  The  most  constant  reproach  which  is  launched  against  persons 
of  my  way  of  thinking  is,  that  it  is  all  very  well  for  us  to  talk 
about  the  deductions  of  scientific  thought,  but  what  are  the  poor 
and  the  uneducated  to  do  ?  Has  it  ever  occurred  to  those  who 
talk  in  this  fashion  that  the  Creeds  and  the  Articles  of  their 
several  Confessions,  their  determination  of  the  exact  nature  and 
extent  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  their  expositions  of  the  real 
meaning  of  that  which  is  written  in  the  Epistles  (to  leave  aside 


1  The  United  States  ought,  perhaps,  to  be  added,  but  I  am  not  sure. 

2  Imagine  that  all  our  Chairs  of  Astronomy  had  been  founded  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  and  that  their  incumbents  were  bound  to  sign  Ptole- 
maic articles.  In  that  case,  with  every  respect  for  the  efforts  of  persons 
thus  hampered  to  attain  and  expound  the  truth,  I  think  men  of  common 
sense  would  go  elsewhere  to  learn  astronomy.  Zeller's  'Vortrage  und 
Abhandlungen '  were  published  and  came  into  my  hands  a  quarter  of  a 
century  ago.  The  writer's  rank,  as  a  theologian  to  begin  with,  and  sub- 
sequently as  a  historian  of  Greek  philosophy,  is  of  the  highest.  Among 
these  essays  are  two— "Das  Urchristenthum"  and  ''Die  Tiibinger  histor- 
ische  Schule  "—which  are  likely  to  be  of  more  use  to  those  who  wish  to 
know  the  real  state  of  the  case  than  all  that  the  official  "apologists,"  with 
their  one  eye  on  truth  and  the  other  on  the  tenets  of  their  sect,  have 
written.  For  the  opinion  of  a  scientific  theologian  about  theologians  of 
this  stamp  see  pp.  225  and  227  of  the  'Vortriige.' 


I    r   \\\\ 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

for  English  theologians  I  shall  not  condescend  to 
reply  to  them.  I  content  myself  with  calling 
the  reader  s  attention  to  the  fact  that,  in  this 

all  questions  concerning  the  Old  Testament),  are  nothing  more 
than  deductions,  which,  at  any  rate,  profess  to  be  the  result  of 
strictly  scientific  thinking,  and  which  are  not  worth  attending  to 
unless  they  really  possess  that  character  1  If  it  is  not  historically 
true  that  such  and  such  things  happened  in  Palestine  eighteen 
centuries  ago,  what  becomes  of  Christianity  ?  And  what  is  his- 
torical truth  but  that  of  which  the  evidence  bears  strict  scientific 
investigation?  I  do  not  call  to  mind  any  problem  of  natural 
science  which  has  come  under  my  notice,  which  is  more  difiicult, 
or  more  curiously  interesting  as  a  mere  problem,  than  that  of  the 
origin  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  that  of  the  historical  value  of 
the  narratives  which  they  contain.  The  Christianity  of  the 
Churches  stands  or  falls  by  the  results  of  the  purely  scientific 
investigation  of  these  questions.  They  were  first  taken  up,  in  a 
purely  scientific  spirit,  just  about  a  century  ago  ;  they  have  been 
studied  over  and  over  again  by  men  of  vast  knowledge  and 
critical  acumen  ;  but  he  would  be  a  rash  man  who  should  assert 
that  any  solution  of  these  problems,  as  yet  formulated,  is  ex- 
haustive. The  most  that  can  be  said  is  that  certain  prevalent 
solutions  are  certainly  false,  while  others  are  more  or  less  pro- 
bably true. 

"  If  I  am  doing  my  best  to  rouse  my  countrymen  out  of  their 
dogmatic  slumbers,  it  is  not  that  they  may  be  amused  by  seeing 
who  gets  the  best  of  it  in  a  contest  between  a  '  scientist '  and  a 
theologian.  The  serious  question  is  whether  theological  men  of 
science,  or  theological  special  pleaders,  are  to  have  the  confidence 
of  the  general  public ;  it  is  the  question  whether  a  country  in 
which  it  is  possible  for  a  body  of  excellent  clerical  and  lay  gentle- 
men to  discuss,  in  public  meeting  assembled,  how  much  it  is 
desirable  to  let  the  congregations  of  the  faithful  know  of  the 
results  of  Biblical  criticism,  is  likely  to  wake  up  with  anything 
short  of  the  grasp  of  a  rough  lay  hand  upon  its  shoulder ;  it  is 
the  question  whether  the  New  Testament  books,  being,  as  I  believe 
they  were,  written  and  compiled  by  people  who,  according  to 

E 


66  CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM. 

controversy,  it  is  Professor  Huxley  who  finds 
it  requisite  for  his  argument  to  insinuate  that 
his  opponents  are  biassed  by  sordid  motives  ; 
and  I  shall  for  the  future  leave  him  and  his 
sneers  out  of  account,  and  simply  consider  his 
arguments  for  as  much,  or  as  little,  as  they  may 
be  worth.  For  a  similar  reason  I  shall  confine 
myself  as  far  as  possible  to  the  issue  which  I 
raised  at  the  Church  Congress,  and  for  which 
I  then  made  myself  responsible.  I  do  not  care, 
nor  would  it  be  of  any  avail,  to  follow  over  the 
wide  and  sacred  field  of  Christian  evidences  an 
antagonist  who  resorts  to  the  imputation  of  mean 
motives,  and  who,  as  I  shall  show,  will  not  face 
the  witnesses  to  whom  he  himself  appeals.  The 
manner  in  which  Professor  Huxley  has  met  the 
particular  issue  he  challenged  will  be  a  sufiicient 
illustration  to  impartial  minds  of  the  value  which 
is  to  be  attached  to  any  further  assaults  which 
he  may  make  upon  the  Christian  position. 

Let   me   then   briefly  remind   the   reader    of 

their  lights,  were  perfectly  sincere,  will  not,  when  projDerly 
studied  as  ordinary  historical  documents,  afford  us  the  means  of 
self-criticism.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment books  are  not  responsible  for  the  doctrine  invented  by  the 
Churches  that  they  are  anything  but  ordinary  historical  docu- 
ments. The  author  of  the  third  Gospel  tells  us,  as  straightfor- 
wardly as  a  man  can,  that  he  has  no  claim  to  any  other  character 
than  that  of  an  ordinary  compiler  and  editor,  who  had  before  him 
the  works  of  many  and  variously  qualified  predecessors." 


CHRISTIANITY    AND   AGNOSTICISM.  67 

the  simple  question  which  is  at  issue  between 
us.  What  I  alleged  was  that  "  an  Agnosticism 
which  knows  nothing  of  the  relation  of  man  to 
God  must  not  only  refuse  belief  to  our  Lord's 
most  undoubted  teaching,  but  must  deny  the 
reality  of  the  spiritual  convictions  in  which  He 
lived  and  died."  As  evidence  of  that  teaching 
and  of  those  convictions  I  appealed  to  three 
testimonies  —  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  story  of  the  Passion — 
and  I  urged  that,  whatever  critical  opinion  might 
be  held  respecting  the  origin  and  structure  of 
the  four  Gospels,  there  could  not  be  any  reason- 
able doubt  that  those  testimonies  "afford  a  true 
account  of  our  Lord's  essential  belief  and  cardinal 
teaching."  In  his  original  reply,  instead  of 
meeting  this  appeal  to  three  specific  testimonies, 
Professor  Huxley  shifted  the  argument  to  the 
question  of  the  general  credibility  of  the  Gos- 
pels, and  appealed  to  "  the  main  results  of 
Biblical  criticism,  as  they  are  set  forth  in  the 
works  of  Strauss,  Baur,  Eeuss,  and  Volkmar." 
He  referred  to  these  supposed  "  results  "  in  sup- 
port of  his  assertion  that  we  know  "  absolutely 
nothing  "  of  the  authorship  or  genuineness  of  the 
four  Gospels,  and  he  challenged  my  reference  to 
Eenan  as  a  witness  to  the  fact  that  criticism  has 
established  no  such  results.     In  answer  I  quoted 


68  CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

passage  after  passage  from  Eenan  and  from 
Eeuss  showing  that  the  results  at  which  they 
had  arrived  were  directly  contradictory  of  Pro- 
fessor Huxley's  assertions.  How  does  he  meet 
this  evidence  ?  He  simply  says,  in  a  footnote, 
"  For  the  present  I  must  content  myself  with 
warning  my  readers  against  any  reliance  upon 
Dr  Wace's  statements  as  to  the  results  arrived 
at  by  modern  criticism.  They  are  as  gravely 
as  surprisingly  erroneous."  I  might  ask  by  what 
right  Professor  Huxley  thus  presumes  to  pro- 
nounce, as  it  were  ex  cathedra^  without  adducing 
any  evidence,  that  the  statements  of  another 
writer  are  "  surprisingly  erroneous."  But  I  in 
my  turn  content  myself  with  pointing  out  that, 
if  my  quotations  from  Renan  and  Reuss  had 
been  incorrect,  he  could  not  only  have  said  so, 
but  could  have  produced  the  correct  quotations. 
But  he  does  not  deny,  as  of  course  he  cannot, 
that  Reuss,  for  example,  really  states,  as  the 
mature  result  of  his  investigations,  what  I  quoted 
from  him  respecting  St  Luke's  Gospel — namely, 
that  it  was  written  by  St  Luke  and  has  reached 
us  in  its  primitive  form,  and  further,  that  St 
Luke  used  a  book  written  by  St  Mark,  the 
disciple  of  St  Peter,  and  that  this  book  in  all 
probability  comprised  in  its  primitive  form  what 
we  read  in  the  present  day  from  Mark  i.  21  to 


CHEISTIANITY    AND   AGNOSTICISM.  69 

xiii.  37.  These  are  the  results  of  modern  criti- 
cism as  stated  by  a  Biblical  critic  in  whom  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  expressed  special  confidence.  It 
was  not,  therefore,  my  statements  of  the  results 
of  Biblical  criticism  with  which  Professor  Huxley 
was  confronted,  but  Keuss's  statements ;  and 
unless  he  can  show  that  my  quotation  was  a  false 
one,  he  ought  to  have  had  the  candour  to  ac- 
knowledge that  Eeuss,  at  least,  is  on  these  vital 
points  dead  against  him.  Instead  of  any  such 
frank  admission,  he  endeavours  to  explain  away 
the  force  of  his  reference  to  Eeuss.  It  may,  he 
says,  be  well  for  him 

"  to  observe  that  approbation  of  the  manner  in  which 
a  great  Biblical  scholar,  for  instance,  Eeuss,  does 
his  work  does  not  commit  me  to  the  adoption  of  all, 
or  indeed  any,  of  his  views ;  and,  further,  that  the 
disagreements  of  a  series  of  investigators  do  not  in 
any  way  interfere  with  the  fact  that  each  of  them  has 
made  important  contributions  to  the  body  of  truth 
ultimately  established."-^ 

But  I  beg  to  observe  that  Professor  Huxley 
did  not  appeal  to  Eeuss's  methods,  but  to 
Eeuss's  results.  He  said  that  no  retractation 
by  M.  Eenan  would  sensibly  affect  "the  main 
results  of  Biblical  criticism  as  they  are  set 
forth    in    the  works  of  Strauss,    Baur,    Eeuss, 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  264. 


70  CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

and  Yolkmar."  I  have  given  him  the  results 
as  set  forth  by  Reuss  in  Reuss's  own  words,  and 
all  he  has  to  offer  in  reply  is  an  ipse  dixit  in  a 
footnote,  and  an  evasion  in  the  text  of  his  article. 
But,  as  I  said,  this  general  discussion  re- 
specting the  authenticity  and  credibility  of  the 
Gospels  was  itself  an  evasion  of  my  argument, 
which  rested  upon  the  specific  testimony  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the 
narrative  of  the  Passion  ;  and,  accordingly,  in  his 
present  rejoinder  Professor  Huxley,  with  much 
protestation  that  he  made  no  evasion,  addresses 
himself  to  these  three  points ;  and  what  is 
his  answer?  I  feel  obliged  to  characterise  it 
as  another  evasion,  and  in  one  particular  an 
evasion  of  a  flagrant  kind.  The  main  point 
of  his  argument  is  that,  from  various  circum- 
stances, which  I  will  presently  notice  more 
particularly,  there  is  much  reason  to  doubt 
whether  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  was  ever 
actually  delivered  in  the  form  in  which  it  is 
recorded  in  St  Matthew.  He  notices,  for 
instance,  the  combined  similarity  and  difference 
between  St  Matthew's  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
and  St  Luke's  so-called  "  Sermon  on  the  Plain," 
and  then  he  adds  : — 

"  I  thought  that  all  fairly  attentive  and  intelKgent 
students  of  the  Gospels,  to  say  nothing  of  theologians 


CHRISTIANITY    AND   AGNOSTICISM.  71 

of  reputation,  knew  these  things.  But  how  can  any- 
one who  does  know  them  have  the  conscience  to  ask 
whether  there  is  '  any  reasonable  doubt '  that  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  was  preached  by  Jesus  of 
ISTazareth  ? "  ^ 

It  is  a  pity  that  Professor  Huxley  seems  as 
incapable  of  accuracy  in  his  quotations  of  an 
opponent's  words  as  in  his  references  to  the 
authorities  to  whom  he  appeals.  I  did  not  ask 
"whether  there  is  any  reasonable  doubt  that 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  was  preached  by 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,"  and  I  expressly  observed, 
in  the  article  to  which  Professor  Huxley  is  re- 
plying, "that  Professor  Keuss  thinks,  as  many 
good  critics  have  thought,  that  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  combines  various  distinct  utter- 
ances of  our  Lord."  What  I  did  ask,  in  words 
which  Professor  Huxley  quotes,  and  therefore 
had  before  his  eyes,  was  "  whether  there  is  any 
reasonable  doubt  that  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  afford  a  true  account  of 
our  Lord's  essential  belief  and  cardinal  teaching." 
That  is  an  entirely  distinct  question  from  the 
one  which  Professor  Huxley  discusses,  and  a  con- 
fusion of  the  two  is  peculiarly  inexcusable  in  a 
person  who  holds  that  purely  human  view  of  the 
Gospel   narratives   which   he   represents.      If  a 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  277. 


72  CHRISTIANITY    AND   AGNOSTICISM. 

long  report  of  a  speech  appears  in  the  '  Times,' 
and  a  shortened  report  appears  in  the  '  Stand- 
ard,' every  one  knows  that  we  are  none  the  less 
made  acquainted^perhaps  made  still  better  ac- 
quainted— with  the  essential  purport  and  cardi- 
nal meaning  of  the  speaker.  On  the  supposition, 
similarly,  that  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke  are 
simply  giving  two  distinct  accounts  of  the  same 
address,  with  such  omissions  and  variations  of 
order  as  suited  the  purposes  of  their  respective 
narratives,  we  are  in  at  least  as  good  a  position 
for  knowing  what  was  the  main  burden  of  the 
address  as  if  we  had  only  one  account ;  and 
perhaps  in  a  better  position,  as  we  see  what  were 
the  points  which  both  reporters  deemed  essential. 
As  Professor  Huxley  himself  observes,  we  have 
reports  of  speeches  in  ancient  historians  which 
are  certainly  not  in  the  very  words  of  the 
speakers ;  yet  no  one  doubts  that  we  know  the 
main  purport  of  the  speeches  of  Pericles  which 
Thucydides  records. 

This  attempt,  therefore,  to  answer  my  appeal 
to  the  substance  of  the  teaching  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  is  a  palpable  evasion,  and  it  is  aggra- 
vated by  the  manner  in  which  Professor  Huxley 
quotes  a  high  German  authority  in  support  of 
his  contention.  I  am  much  obliged  to  him  for 
appealing   to    Holtzmann ;    for,    though   Holtz- 


CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM.  73 

mann's  own  conclusions  respecting  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  seem  to  me  often,  extra- 
vagantly sceptical  and  far-fetched,  and  though 
I  cannot,  therefore,  quite  agree  with  Professor 
Huxley  that  his  '  Lehrbuch '  gives  "  a  remarkably 
full  and  fair  account  of  the  present  results  of 
criticism,"  yet  I  agree  that  it  gives  on  the  whole 
a  full  and  fair  account  of  the  course  of  criticism 
and  of  the  opinions  of  its  chief  representatives. 
Instead,  therefore,  of  imitating  Professor  Hux- 
ley, and  pronouncing  an  ipse  dixit  as  to  the 
state  of  criticism  or  the  opinions  of  critics,  I 
am  very  glad  to  be  able  to  refer  to  a  book  of 
which  the  authority  is  recognised  by  him,  and 
which  will  save  both  my  readers  and  myself 
from  embarking  on  the  wide  and  waste  ocean 
of  the  German  criticism  of  the  last  fifty  years. 
"Holtzmann,"  says  Professor  Huxley  in  a  note,^ 
"  has  no  doubt  that  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  is  a  compilation,  or,  as  he  calls  it  in  his 
recently  published  'Lehrbuch'  (p.  372),  'an 
artificial  mosaic  work.' "  Now,  let  the  reader 
attend  to  what  Holtzmann  really  says  in  the 
passage  referred  to.  His  words  are :  "In  the 
so-called  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt,  v.-vii.) 
we  find  constructed,  on  the  basis  of  a  real  dis- 
course of  fundamental  significance,   a   skilfully 

^  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  277. 


74  CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM. 

articulated  mosaic  work."  ^  The  phrase  was  not 
so  long  a  one  that  Professor  Huxley  need  have 
omitted  the  important  words  by  which  those  he 
quotes  are  qualified.  Holtzmann  recognises,  as 
will  be  seen,  that  a  real  discourse  of  fundamental 
significance  underlies  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
That  is  enough  for  my  purpose ;  for  no  reason- 
able person  will  suppose  that  the  fundamental 
significance  of  the  real  discourse  has  been  en- 
tirely obliterated,  especially  as  the  main  purport 
of  the  sermon  in  St  Luke  is  of  the  same  char- 
acter. But  Professor  Huxley  must  know  per- 
fectly well,  as  every  one  else  does,  that  he  would 
be  maintaining  a  paradox,  in  which  every  critic 
of  repute,  to  say  nothing  of  every  man  of 
common-sense,  would  be  against  him,  if  he  were 
to  maintain  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  does 
not  give  a  substantially  correct  idea  of  our  Lord's 
teaching.  But  to  admit  this  is  to  admit  my 
point,  so  he  rides  ofi"  on  a  side-issue  as  to  the 
question  of  the  precise  form  in  which  the  sermon 
was  delivered. 

I  must,  however,  take  some  notice  of  Professor 
Huxley's  argument  on  this  irrelevant  issue,  as  it 
affords  a  striking  illustration  of  that   superior 

1  "In  der  sog.  Bergpredigt,  Mt.  5-7,  gibt  sich  eine,  auf  Grund 
einer  wirklichen  Rede  von  fundamentaler  Bedeutung  sich  erhe- 
bende,  knnstreich  gegliederte  Mosaikarbeit." 


CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM.  75 

method  of  ratiocination  in  these  matters  on 
which  he  prides  himself.  I  need  not  trouble  the 
reader  much  on  the  questions  he  raises  as  to  the 
relations  of  the  first  three  Gospels.  Any  one 
who  cares  to  see  a  full  and  thorough  discussion 
of  that  difficult  question,  conducted  with  a  com- 
plete knowledge  of  foreign  criticism  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  at  the  same  time  marked  by  the  great- 
est lucidity  and  interest,  may  be  referred  to  the 
admirable  '  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament ' 
by  Dr  Salmon,  who,  like  Professor  Huxley,  is  a 
Fellow  of  the  Koyal  Society,  and  who  became 
eminent  as  one  of  the  first  mathematicians  of 
Europe  before  he  became  similarly  eminent  as  a 
theologian.  I  am  content  here  to  let  Professor 
Huxley's  assumptions  pass,  as  I  am  only  con- 
cerned to  illustrate  the  fallacious  character  of  the 
reasoning  he  founds  upon  them.     He  says  ^ : — 

"  I  am  of  opinion  that  there  is  the  gravest  reason 
for  doubting  whether  the  '  Sermon  on  the  Mount ' 
was  ever  preached,  and  whether  the  so-called  '  Lord's 
Prayer '  v^as  ever  prayed,  by  Jesus  of  N'azareth.  My 
reasons  for  this  opinion  are,  among  others,  these : — 
There  is  now  no  doubt  that  the  three  synoptic  Gos- 
pels, so  far  from  being  the  work  of  three  independent 
writers,  are  closely  interdependent,  and  that  in  one  of 
two  ways.  Either  all  three  contain,  as  their  founda- 
tion, versions,  to  a  large  extent  verbally  identical,  of 

^  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  pp.  272-274. 


76  CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

one  and  the  same  tradition ;  or  two  of  them  are  thus 
closely  dependent  on  the  third;  and  the  opinion  of 
the  majority  of  the  best  critics  has  of  late  years 
more  and  more  converged  towards  the  conviction  that 
our  canonical  second  Gospel  (the  so-called  '  Mark's ' 
Gospel)  is  that  which  most  closely  represents  the 
primitive  groundwork  of  the  three.  That  I  take  to  be 
one  of  the  most  valuable  results  of  New  Testament 
criticism,  of  immeasurably  greater  importance  than 
the  discussion  about  dates  and  authorship.  But  if,  as 
I  believe  to  be  the  case,  beyond  any  rational  doubt  or 
dispute,  the  second  Gospel  is  the  nearest  extant  repre- 
sentative of  the  oldest  tradition,  whether  written  or 
oral,  how  comes  it  that  it  contains  neither  the  *  Sermon 
on  the  Mount '  nor  the  '  Lord's  Prayer,'  those  typical 
embodiments,  according  to  Dr  Wace,  of  the  '  essential 
belief  and  cardinal  teaching '  of  Jesus  ? " 

I  have  quoted  every  word  of  this  passage  be- 
cause I  am  anxious  for  the  reader  to  estimate  the 
value  of  Professor  Huxley's  own  statement  of  his 
case.  It  is,  as  he  says,  the  opinion  of  many 
critics  of  authority  that  a  certain  fixed  tradition, 
written  or  oral,  was  used  by  the  writers  of  the 
first  three  Gospels.  In  the  first  place,  why  this 
should  prevent  those  three  Gospels  from  being 
the  work  of  **  three  independent  writers  "  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  conceive.  If  Mr  Froude,  the  late 
Professor  Brewer,  and  the  late  Mr  Green  each 
use  the  EoUs  Calendars  of  the  reign  of  Henry 
VIIL,  I  do  not  see  that  this  abolishes  their  in- 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM.  77 

dividuality.  Any  historian  who  describes  the 
Peloponnesian  War  uses  the  memoirs  of  that  war 
written  by  Thucydides  ;  but  Bishop  Thirl  wall  and 
Mr  Grote  were,  I  presume,  independent  writers. 
But  to  pass  to  a  more  important  point,  that 
which  is  assumed  is  that  a  certain  alleged  tradi- 
tion, written  or  oral,  was  the  groundwork  of  our 
three  first  Gospels,  and  it  is  therefore  older  than 
they  are.  Let  it  be  granted,  for  the  sake  of 
argument.  But  how  does  this  prove  that  the 
tradition  in  question  is  *'  the  oldest,"  so  that 
anything  which  was  not  in  it  is  thereby  discred- 
ited ?  It  was,  let  us  allow,  an  old  tradition,  used 
by  the  writers  of  the  first  three  Gospels.  But- 
how  does  this  fact  raise  the  slightest  presump- 
tion against  the  probability  that  there  were 
other  traditions,  equally  old,  which  they  might 
use  with  equal  justification  so  far  as  their  scope 
required  ? 

Professor  Huxley  alleges,  in  short,  and  I  do  not 
care  to  dispute  the  allegation,  that  the  first  three 
Gospels  embody  a  certain  record  older  than 
themselves.  But  by  what  right  does  he  ask  me 
to  accept  this  as  evidence,  or  as  afi"ording  even 
the  slightest  presumption,  that  there  was  no 
other  ?  Between  his  allegation  in  one  sentence 
that  the  second  Gospel  "  most  closely  represents 
the  primitive  groundwork  of  the  three,"  and  his 


78  CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM. 

allegation,  in  the  next  sentence  but  one,  that 
"  the  second  Gospel  is  the  nearest  extant  repre- 
sentative of  the  oldest  tradition,"  there  is  an 
absolute  and  palpable  non  sequitur.  It  is  a 
mere  juggle  of  phrases,  and  upon  this  juggle  the 
whole  of  his  subsequent  argument  on  this  point 
depends.  St  Mark's  Gospel  may  very  well  repre- 
sent the  oldest  tradition  relative  to  the  common 
matter  of  the  three,  without,  therefore,  necessar- 
ily representing  "  the  oldest  tradition  "  in  such  a 
sense  as  to  be  a  touchstone  for  all  other  reports 
of  our  Lord's  life.  Professor  Huxley  must  know 
very  well  that,  from  the  time  of  Schleiermacher, 
many  critics  have  believed  in  the  existence  of 
another  document  containing  a  collection  of  our 
Lord's  discourses.  Holtzmann  concludes^  that 
"  under  all  the  circumstances  the  hypothesis  of 
two  sources  offers  the  most  probable  solution 
of  the  synoptical  problem ; "  and  it  is  surely 
incredible  that  no  old  traditions  of  our  Lord's 
teaching  should  have  existed  beyond  those 
which  are  common  to  the  three  Gospels.  St 
Luke,  in  fact,  in  that  preface  which  Professor 
Huxley  has  no  hesitation  in  using  for  his  own 
purposes,  says  that  "many  had  taken  in  hand 
to  set  forth  in  order  a  declaration  of  those  things 
w^hich  are  most  surely  believed  among  us  ; "  but 

1  Lehrbuch,  second  edition,  1886,  p.  376. 


CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM.  79 

Professor  Huxley  asks  us  to  assume  that  none  of 
these  records  were  old,  and  none  trustworthy, 
but  that  particular  one  which  furnishes  a  sort  of 
skeleton  to  the  first  three  Gospels.  There  is  no 
evidence  whatever,  beyond  Professor  Huxley's 
private  judgment,  for  such  an  assumption.  Nay, 
he  himself  tells  us^  that,  according  to  Holtz- 
mann,  it  is  at  present  a  "burning  question" 
among  critics  "  whether  the  relatively  primi- 
tive narrative  and  the  root  of  the  other 
synoptic  texts  is  contained  in  Matthew  or  in 
Mark."  Yet  while  his  own  authority  tells  him 
that  this  is  a  burning  question,  he  treats  it  as 
settled  in  favour  of  St  Mark,  ''  beyond  any 
rational  doubt  or  dispute,"  and  employs  this 
assumption  as  sufficiently  solid  ground  on  which 
to  rest  his  doubts  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  and  the  Lord's  Prayer  I 

But  let  us  pass  to  another  point  in  Professor 
Huxley's  mode  of  argument.  Let  us  grant, 
again  for  the  sake  of  argument,  his  non  sequitur 
that  the  second  Gospel  is  the  nearest  extant 
representative  of  the  oldest  tradition.  "  How 
comes  it,"  he  asks,  "  that  it  contains  neither  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  nor  the  Lord's  Prayer  ? " 
Well,  that  is  a  very  interesting  inquiry,  which 
has,  in  point  of  fact,  often  been  considered  by 

I       1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  273. 


80  CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

Christian  divines ;  and  various  answers  are  con- 
ceivable, equally  reasonable  and  sufficient.  If 
it  was  St  Mark's  object  to  record  our  Lord's 
acts  rather  than  His  teaching,  what  right  has 
Professor  Huxley,  from  his  purely  human  point 
of  view,  to  find  fault  with  him  ?  If,  from  a 
Christian  point  of  view,  St  Mark  was  inspired 
by  a  divine  guidance  to  present  the  most  vivid, 
brief,  and  effective  sketch  possible  of  our  Lord's 
action  as  a  Saviour,  and  for  that  purpose  to 
leave  to  another  writer  the  description  of  our 
Lord  as  a  Teacher,  the  phenomenon  is  not  less 
satisfactorily  explained.  St  Mark,  according  to 
that  tradition  of  the  Church  which  Professor 
Huxley  believes  to  be  quite  worthless,  but  which 
his  authority  Holtzmann  does  not,  was  in  great 
measure  the  mouthpiece  of  St  Peter.  Now  St 
Peter  is  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in 
his  address  to  Cornelius,  as  summing  up  our 
Lord's  life  in  these  words  :  "  How  God  anointed 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
with  power :  who  went  about  doing  good,  and 
healing  all  who  were  oppressed  of  the  devil :  for 
God  was  with  Him ; "  and  this  is  very  much  the 
point  of  view  represented  in  St  Mark's  Gospel. 

When,   in    fact.    Professor   Huxley   asks,^    in 
answer  to  Holtzmann,  who  is  again  unfavour- 

^  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  277,  note. 


CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM.  81 

able  to  his  views,  "  what  conceivable  motive 
could  '  Mark '  have  for  omitting  it  ? "  the  an- 
swers that  arise  are  innumerable.  Perhaps, 
as  has  been  suggested,  St  Mark  was  more 
concerned  with  acts  than  words ;  perhaps  he 
wanted  to  be  brief;  perhaps  he  was  writing 
for  persons  Xvho  wanted  one  kind  of  record  and 
not  another ;  and,  above  all,  perhaps  it  was  not 
so  much  a  question  of  "omission  "  as  of  selection. 
It  is  really  astonishing  that  this  latter  con- 
sideration never  seems  to  cross  the  mind  of 
Professor  Huxley  and  writers  like  him.  The 
Gospels  are  among  the  briefest  biographies  in 
the  world.  I  have  sometimes  thought  that 
there  is  evidence  of  something  superhuman 
about  them  in  the  mere  fact  that,  while  human 
biographers  labour  through  volumes  in  order  to 
give  us  some  idea  of  their  subject,  every  one  of 
the  Gospels,  occupying  no  more  than  a  chapter 
or  two  in  length  of  an  ordinary  biography, 
nevertheless  gives  us  an  image  of  our  Lord 
sufficiently  vivid  to  have  made  Him  the  living 
companion  of  all  subsequent  generations.  But 
if  "  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ "  was  to  be  told 
within  the  compass  of  the  sixteen  chapters  of 
St  Mark,  some  selection  had  to  be  made  out  of 
the  mass  of  our  Lord's  words  and  deeds  as 
recorded  by  the  tradition  of  those  who  "from 

F 


82  CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses,  and  ministers 
of  the  word/'  The  very  greatness  and  effec- 
tiveness of  these  four  Gospels  consist  in  this 
wonderful  power  of  selection,  like  that  by  which 
a  great  artist  depicts  a  character  and  a  figure  in 
half-a-dozen  touches  ;  and  Professor  Huxley  may 
perhaps,  to  put  the  matter  on  its  lowest  level, 
find  out  a  conceivable  motive  for  St  Mark's 
omissions  when  he  can  produce  such  an  effective 
narrative  as  St  Mark's.  As  St  John  says  at  the 
end  of  his  G-ospel,  "there  are  also  many  other 
things  which  Jesus  did,  the  which,  if  they  should 
be  written  every  one,  I  suppose  that  even  the 
world  itself  could  not  contain  the  books  that 
should  be  written."  So  St  John,  like  St  Mark, 
had  to  make  his  selection,  and  selection  involves 
omission. 

But,  after  all,  I  venture  to  ask  whether  any- 
thing can  be  more  preposterous  than  this 
supposition  that  because  a  certain  tradition 
is  the  oldest  authority,  therefore  every  other 
authority  is  discredited  ?  Boswell  writes  a  Life 
of  Johnson  ;  therefore  every  record  of  Johnson's 
acts  or  words  which  is  not  in  Boswell  is  to  be 
suspected.  Archdeacon  Hare  writes  a  Life  of 
Sterling  first,  and  Carlyle  writes  one  after- 
wards ;  therefore  nothing  in  Carlyle's  life  is  to 
be   trusted  which  was   not   also   in   the  Arch- 


CHRISTIANITY    AND   AGNOSTICISM.  83 

deacon's.  What  seems  to  me  so  astonishing 
about  Professor  Huxley's  articles  is  not  the 
wildness  of  their  conclusions,  but  the  rotten- 
ness of  their  ratiocination.  To  take  another 
instance  ^ : — 

"  '  Luke '  either  knew  the  collection  of  loosely  con- 
nected and  aphoristic  utterances  which  appear  under 
the  name  of  the  '  Sermon  on  the  Mount '  in  '  Matthew,' 
or  he  did  not.  If  he  did  not,  he  must  have  been 
ignorant  of  the  existence  of  such  a  document  as  our 
canonical  '  Matthew,'  a  fact  which  does  not  make  for 
the  genuineness,  or  the  authority,  of  that  book.  If  he 
did,  he  has  shown  that  he  does  not  care  for  its  authority 
on  a  matter  of  fact  of  no  small  importance ;  and  that 
does  not  permit  us  to  conceive  that  he  believed  the 
first  Gospel  to  be  the  work  of  an  authority  to  whom 
he  ought  to  *  defer,  let  alone  that  of  an  apostolic 
eye-witness." 

I  pass  by  the  description  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  as  a  "  collection  of  loosely  connected 
utterances,"  though  it  is  a  kind  of  begging  of  a 
very  important  question.  But  supposing  St 
Luke  to  have  been  ignorant  of  the  existence  of 
St  Matthew's  Gospel,  how  does  this  reflect  on 
the  genuineness  of  that  book  unless  we  know, 
as  no  one  does,  that  St  Matthew's  Gospel  was 
written  before  St  Luke's,  and  sufficiently  long 
before  it  to  have  become  known  to  him  ?     Or,  if 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  276. 


84  CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM. 

he  did  know  it,  where  is  the  disrespect  to  its 
authority  in  his  having  given  for  his  own  pur- 
poses an  abridgment  of  that  which  St  Matthew 
gave  more  fully  ?  Professor  Huxley  might 
almost  seem  dominated  by  the  mechanical 
theory  of  inspiration  which  he  denounces  in  his 
antagonists.  He  writes  as  if  there  were  some- 
thing absolutely  sacred,  neither  to  be  altered 
nor  added  to,  in  the  mere  words  of  some  old 
authority  of  which  he  conceives  himself  to  be  in 
possession.  Dr  Abbott,  with  admirable  labour, 
has  had  printed  for  him,  in  clear  type,  the  words 
or  bits  of  words  which  are  common  to  the  first 
three  Gospels,  and  he  seems  immediately  to 
adopt  the  anathema  of  the  Book  of  Revelation, 
and  to  proclaim  to  every  man,  evangelists  and 
apostles  included,  "if  any  man  shall  add  unto 
these  things,  .  .  .  and  if  any  man  shall  take 
away  from  the  words  "  of  this  "  common  tradi- 
tion" of  Dr  Abbott,  he  shall  be  forthwith 
scientifically  excommunicated.  I  venture  to 
submit,  as  a  mere  matter  of  common-sense,  that 
if  three  persons  used  one  document,  it  is  the 
height  of  rashness  to  conclude  that  it  contained 
nothing  but  what  they  all  three  quote ;  that  it 
is  not  only  possible  but  probable  that,  while 
certain  parts  were  used  by  all,  each  may  have 
used  some  parts  as  suitable  to  his  own  purpose 


CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM.  85 

which  the  others  did  not  find  suitable  to  theirs ; 
and  lastly,  that  the  fact  of  there  having  been 
one  such  document  in  existence  is  so  far  from 
being  evidence  that  there  were  no  others,  that  it 
even  creates  some  presumption  that  there  were. 
In  short,  I  must  beg  leave  to  represent,  not  so 
much  that  Professor  Huxley's  conclusions  are 
wrong,  but  that  there  is  absolutely  no  validity 
in  the  reasoning  by  which  he  endeavours  to 
support  them.  It  is  not,  in  fact,  reasoning  at 
all,  but  mere  presumption  and  guesswork,  in- 
consistent, moreover,  with  all  experience  and 
common-sense. 

Of  course,  if  Professor  Huxley's  quibbles 
against  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  go  to  pieces, 
so  do  his  cavils  at  the  authenticity  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer ;  and,  indeed,  on  these  two  points  I 
venture  to  think  the  case  for  which  I  was  con- 
tending is  carried  by  the  mere  fact  that  it  seems 
necessary  to  Professor  Huxley's  position  that  he 
should  dispute  them.  If  he  cannot  maintain  his 
ground  without  pushing  his  Agnosticism  to  such 
a  length  as  to  deny  the  substantial  genuineness 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  I  think  he  will  be  found  to  have  allowed 
enough  to  satisfy  reasonable  men  that  his  case 
must  be  a  bad  one.  I  shall  not,  therefore,  waste 
more  time  on  these  points,  as  I  must  say  some- 


86  CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM. 

thing  on  his  strange  treatment  of  the  third 
point  in  the  evangelical  records  to  which  I 
referred,  the  story  of  the  Passion.  It  is  really 
difficult  to  take  seriously  what  he  says  on  this 
subject.     He  says\- — 

"  I  am  not  quite  sure  what  Dr  Wace  means  by  this. 
I  am  not  aware  that  any  one  (with  the  exception  of 
certain  ancient  heretics)  has  propounded  doubts  as  to 
the  reality  of  the  crucifixion;  and  certainly  I  have 
no  inclination  to  argue  about  the  precise  accuracy  of 
every  detail  of  that  pathetic  story  of  suffering  and 
wrong.  But  if  Dr  Wace  means,  as  I  suppose  he  does, 
that  that  which,  according  to  the  orthodox  view, 
happened  after  the  Crucifixion,  and  which  is,  in  a 
dogmatic  sense,  the  most  important  part  of  the  story, 
is  founded  on  solid  historical  proofs,  I  must  beg  leave 
to  express  a  diametrically  opposite  conviction." 

Professor  Huxley  is  not  quite  sure  what  I 
mean  by  the  story  of  the  Passion,  but  supposes 
I  mean  the  story  of  the  Resurrection  !  It  is 
barely  credible  that  he  can  have  supposed  any- 
thing of  the  kind ;  but  by  this  gratuitous 
supposition  he  has  again  evaded  the  issue  I 
proposed  to  him,  and  has  shifted  the  argument 
to  another  topic  which,  however  important  in 
itself,  is  entirely  irrelevant  to  the  particular 
point  in  question.  If  he  really  supposed  that 
when  I  said  the  Passion  I  meant  the  Resurrec- 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  278. 


CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM.  87 

tion,  it  is  only  anotlier  proof  of  his  incapacity 
for  strict  argument,  at  least  on  these  subjects. 
I  not  only  used  the  expression  "  the  story  of  the 
Passion,"  but  I  explicitly  stated  in  my  reply  to 
him  for  what  purpose  I  appealed  to  it.  I  said 
that  "that  story  involves  the  most  solemn 
attestation,  again  and  again,  of  truths  of  which 
an  Agnostic  coolly  says  he  knows  nothing ; "  and 
I  mentioned  particularly  our  Lord's  final  utter- 
ance, "  Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend  my 
spirit,"  as  conveying  our  Lord's  attestation,  in 
His  death-agony,  to  His  relation  to  God  as  His 
Father.  That  exclamation  is  recorded  by  St 
Luke ;  but  let  me  remind  the  reader  of  what  is 
recorded  by  St  Mark,  upon  whom  Professor 
Huxley  mainly  relies.  There  we  have  the 
account  of  the  agony  in  Gethsemane  and  of  our 
Lord's  prayer  to  His  Father ;  we  have  the  solemn 
challenge  of  the  high  priest,  "  Art  Thou  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed  ? "  and  our  Lord's 
reply,  "  I  am ;  and  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man 
sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming 
in  the  clouds  of  heaven,"  with  His  immediate 
condemnation,  on  the  ground  that  in  this  state- 
ment He  had  spoken  blasphemy.  On  the  cross, 
moreover,  St  Mark  records  His  affecting  appeal 
to  His  Father:  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast 
Thou  forsaken  me  ? "    All  this  solemn  evidence 


88  CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

Professor  Huxley  puts  aside  with  the  mere 
passing  observation  that  he  has  "no  inclination 
to  argue  about  the  precise  accuracy  of  every 
detail  of  that  pathetic  story  of  suffering  and 
wrong."  But  these  prayers  and  declarations  of 
our  Lord  are  not  mere  details ;  they  are  of  the 
very  essence  of  the  story  of  the  Passion ;  and 
whether  Professor  Huxley  is  inclined  to  argue 
about  them  or  not,  he  will  find  that  all  serious 
people  will  be  influenced  by  them  to  the 
end  of  time,  unless  they  can  be  shown  to  be 
unhistorical. 

At  all  events,  by  refusing  to  consider  their 
import.  Professor  Huxley  has  again,  in  the  most 
flagrant  manner,  evaded  my  challenge.  I  not 
only  mentioned  specifically  "  the  story  of  the 
Passion,"  but  I  explained  what  I  meant  by  it ; 
and  Professor  Huxley  asks  us  to  believe  that 
he  does  not  understand  what  I  referred  to  :  he 
refuses  to  face  that  story,  and  he  raises  an 
irrelevant  issue  about  the  Resurrection.  It  is 
irrelevant,  because  the  point  specifically  at  issue 
between  us  is  not  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
creed,  but  the  meaning  of  Agnosticism,  and  the 
responsibilities  which  Agnosticism  involves.  I 
say  that  whether  Agnosticism  be  justifiable  or 
not,  it  involves  a  denial  of  the  beliefs  in  which 
Jesus  lived  and  died.     It  would  equally  involve 


CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM.  89 

a  denial  of  them  had  He  never  risen ;  and  if 
Professor  Huxley  really  thinks,  therefore,  that 
a  denial  of  the  Kesurrection  affects  the  evidence 
afforded  by  the  Passion,  he  must  be  incapable 
of  distinguishing  between  two  successive  and 
entirely  distinct  occurrences. 

But  the  manner  in  which  Professor  Huxley 
has  treated  this  irrelevant  issue  deserves  per- 
haps a  few  words,  for  it  is  another  characteristic 
specimen  of  his  mode  of  argument.  I  note,  by 
the  way,  that  after  referring  to  "  the  facts  of  the 
case  as  stated  by  the  oldest  extant  narrative  of 
them  " — by  which  he  means  the  story  in  St  Mark, 
though  this  is  not  a  part  of  that  common  tradi- 
tion of  the  three  Gospels  on  which  he  relies  ;  for, 
as  he  observes,  the  accounts  in  St  Matthew  and 
St  Luke  present  marked  variations  from  it — 
he  adds  ^ : — 

"  I  do  not  see  why  any  one  should  have  a  word  to 
say  against  the  inherent  probability  of  that  narrative ; 
and  for  my  part,  I  am  quite  ready  to  accept  it  as  an 
historical  fact,  that  so  much  and  no  more  is  positively 
known  of  the  end  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth." 


1  I  subjoin  the  whole  passage  from  'Science  and  Christian 
Tradition,'  pp.  279-282  :— 

"  What  do  we  find  when  the  accounts  of  the  events  in  question, 
contained  in  the  three  Synoptic  Gospels,  are  compared  together  ? 
In  the  oldest,  there  is  a  simple,  straightforward  statement  which, 
for  anything  that  I  have  to  urge  to  the  contrary,  may  be  ex- 
actly true.     In  the  other  two,  there  is,  round  this  possible  and 


90  CHRISTIANITY    AND   AGNOSTICISM. 

We  have,  then,  the  important  admission  that 
Professor  Huxley  has  not  a  word  to  say  against 

probable  nucleus,  a  mass  of  accretions  of  the  most  questionable 
character. 

"The  cruelty  of  death  by  crucifixion  depended  very  much 
upon  its  lingering  character.  If  there  were  a  support  for  the 
weight  of  the  body,  as  not  unfrequently  was  the  practice,  the  pain 
during  the  first  hours  of  the  infliction  was  not,  necessarily, 
extreme  ;  nor  need  any  serious  physical  symptoms,  at  once,  arise 
from  the  wounds  made  by  the  nails  in  the  hands  and  feet,  sup- 
posing they  were  nailed,  which  was  not  invariably  the  case. 
When  exhaustion  set  in,  and  hunger,  thirst,  and  nervous  irrita- 
tion had  done  their  work,  the  agony  of  the  sufferer  must  have 
been  terrible  ;  and  the  more  terrible  that  in  the  absence  of  any 
effectual  disturbance  of  the  machinery  of  physical  life,  it  might 
be  prolonged  for  many  hours,  or  even  days.  Temperate,  strong 
men,  such  as  were  the  ordinary  Galilean  peasants,  might  live  for 
several  days  on  the  cross.  It  is  necessary  to  bear  these  facts  in 
mind  when  we  read  the  account  contained  in  the  fifteenth  chapter 
of  the  second  Gospel. 

"  Jesus  was  crucified  at  the  third  hour  (xv.  25),  and  the  narra- 
tive seems  to  imply  that  he  died  immediately  after  the  ninth 
hour  (ver.  34).  In  this  case,  he  would  have  been  crucified  only 
six  hours  ;  and  the  time  spent  on  the  cross  cannot  have  been 
much  longer,  because  Joseph  of  Arimathsea  must  have  gone  to 
Pilate,  made  his  preparations,  and  deposited  the  body  in  the 
rock-cut  tomb  before  sunset,  which,  at  that  time  of  the  year,  was 
about  the  twelfth  hour.  That  any  one  should  die  after  only  six 
hours'  crucifixion  could  not  have  been  at  all  in  accordance  with 
Pilate's  large  experience  of  the  effects  of  that  method  of  punish- 
ment. It,  therefore,  quite  agrees  with  what  might  be  expected 
that  Pilate '  marvelled  if  he  were  already  dead,'  and  required  to  be 
satisfied  on  this  point  by  the  testimony  of  the  Koman  officer  who 
was  in  command  of  the  execution  party.  Those  who  have  paid 
attention  to  the  extraordinarily  difficult  question.  What  are  the 
indisputable  signs  of  death  1 — will  be  able  to  estimate  the  value 
of  the  opinion  of  a  rough  soldier  on  such  a  subject ;  even  if  his 
report  to  the  Procurator  were  in  no  wise  affected  by  the  fact  that 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM.  91 

the  historic  credibility  of  the  narrative  in  the 
15th  chapter  of  St  Mark,   and  accordingly  he 

the  friend  of  Jesus,  who  anxiously  awaited  his  answer,  was  a 
man  of  influence  and  of  wealth. 

"The  inanimate  body,  wrapped  in  linen,  was  deposited  in  a 
spacious,!  cool  rock  chamber,  the  entrance  of  which  was  closed, 
not  by  a  well-fitting  door,  but  by  a  stone  rolled  against  the 
opening,  which  would  of  course  allow  free  passage  of  air.  A 
little  more  than  thirty-six  hours  afterwards  (Friday,  6  p.m.,  to 
Sunday,  6  a.m.,  or  a  little  after)  three  women  visit  the  tomb  and 
find  it  empty.  And  they  are  told  by  a  young  man  '  arrayed  in  a 
white  robe '  that  Jesus  is  gone  to  his  native  country  of  Galilee, 
and  that  the  disciples  and  Peter  will  find  him  there. 

"  Thus  it  stands,  plainly  recorded,  in  the  oldest  tradition  that, 
for  any  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  sepulchre  may  have  been 
vacated  at  any  time  during  the  Friday  or  Saturday  nights.  If  it 
is  said  that  no  Jew  would  have  violated  the  Sabbath  by  taking 
the  former  course,  it  is  to  be  recollected  that  Joseph  of  Arimathsfea 
might  well  be  familiar  with  that  wise  and  liberal  interpretation 
of  the  fourth  commandment,  which  permitted  works  of  mercy  to 
men — nay,  even  the  drawing  of  an  ox  or  an  ass  out  of  a  pit — on 
the  Sabbath.  At  any  rate,  the  Saturday  night  was  free  to  the 
most  scrupulous  of  observers  of  the  Law. 

"  These  are  the  facts  of  the  case  as  stated  by  the  oldest  extant 
narrative  of  them.  I  do  not  see  why  any  one  should  have  a 
word  to  say  against  the  inherent  probability  of  that  narrative  ; 
and,  for  my  part,  I  am  quite  ready  to  accept  it  as  an  historical 
fact,  that  so  much  and  no  Vnore  is  positively  known  of  the  end  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  On  what  grounds  can  a  reasonable  man  be 
asked  to  believe  any  more  ?  So  far  as  the  narrative  in  the  first 
Gospel,  on  the  one  hand,  and  those  in  the  third  Gospel  and  the 
Acts,  on  the  other,  go  beyond  what  is  stated  in  the  second  Gospel, 
they  are  hopelessly  discrepant  with  one  another.  And  this  is  the 
more  significant  because  the  pregnant  phrase  '  some  doubted,'  in 
the  first  Gospel,  is  ignored  in  the  third." 


1  Spacious,  because  a  young  man  could  sit  in  it  "on  the  right  side" 
(xvi.  5),  and  therefore  with  plenty  of  room  to  spare. 


92  CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

proceeds  to  quote  its  statements  for  the  purpose 
of  his  argument.  That  argument,  in  brief,  is 
that  our  Lord  might  very  well  have  survived 
His  crucifixion,  have  been  removed  still  living 
to  the  tomb,  have  been  taken  out  of  it  on  the 
Friday  or  Saturday  night  by  Joseph  of  Arima- 
thsea,  and  have  recovered  and  found  His  way 
to  Galilee.  So  much  Professor  Huxley  is  pre- 
pared to  believe,  and  he  asks,  "  On  what  grounds 
can  a  reasonable  man  be  asked  to  believe  any 
more  ? "  But  a  prior  question  is,  On  what 
grounds  can  a  reasonable  man  be  asked  to  be- 
lieve as  much  as  this  ?  In  the  first  place,  if  St 
Mark's  narrative  is  to  be  the  basis  of  discussion, 
why  does  Professor  Huxley  leave  out  of  account 
the  scourging,  with  the  indication  of  weakness 
in  our  Lord's  inability  to  bear  His  cross,  and 
treat  Him  as  exposed  to  crucifixion  in  the  con- 
dition simply  of  "  temperate,  strong  men,  such 
as  were  the  ordinary  Galilean  peasants "  ?  In 
the  next  place,  I  am  informed  by  good  medical 
authority  that  he  is  quite  mistaken  in  saying 
that  "no  serious  physical  symptoms  need,  at  once, 
arise  from  the  wounds  made  by  the  nails  in  the 
hands  and  feet,"  and  that,  on  the  contrary,  very 
grave  symptoms  would  ordinarily  arise  in  the 
course  of  no  long  time  from  such  severe  wounds, 
left  to  fester,  with  the  nails  in  them,  for  six 


CHRISTIANITY    AND   AGNOSTICISM.  93 

hours.  In  the  third  place,  Professor  Huxley 
takes  no  account  of  the  piercing  of  our  Lord's 
side,  and  of  the  appearance  of  blood  and  water 
from  the  wound,  which  is  solemnly  attested  by 
one  witness.  It  is  true  that  incident  is  not  re- 
corded by  St  Mark ;  but  Professor  Huxley  must 
disprove  the  witness  before  he"^  can  leave  it  out 
of  account.  But,  lastly,  if  Professor  Huxley's 
account  of  the  matter  be  true,  the  first  preach- 
ing of  the  Church  must  have  been  founded  on 
a  deliberate  fraud,  of  which  some  at  least  of  our 
Lord's  most  intimate  friends  were  guilty,  or  to 
which  they  were  accessory ;  and  I  thought  that 
supposition  was  practically  out  of  account  among 
reasonable  men. 

Professor  Huxley  then  argues  as  if  he  had  only 
to  deal  with  the  further  evidence  of  St  Paul. 
That,  indeed,  is  evidence  of  a  far  more  mo- 
mentous character  than  he  recognises ;  but  it  is 
by  no  means  the  most  important.  It  is  be- 
yond question  that  the  Christian  society,  from 
the  earliest  moment  of  its  existence,  believed  in 
our  Lord's  resurrection.  Baur  frankly  says  that 
there  is  no  doubt  about  the  Church  having  been 
founded  on  this  belief,  though  he  cannot  explain 
how  the  belief  arose.  If  the  resurrection  be  a 
fact,  the  belief  is  explained ;  but  it  is  certainly 
not  explained  by  the  supposition  of  a  fraud  on 


94  CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

the  part  of  Joseph  of  Arimathsea.  As  to  Pro- 
fessor Huxley's  assertion  that  the  accounts  in 
the  three  Gospels  are  "  hopelessly  discrepant,"  it 
is  easily  made  and  as  easily  denied ;  but  it  is 
out  of  all  reason  that  Professor  Huxley's  bare 
assertion  on  such  a  point  should  outweigh  the 
opinions  of  some  of  the  most  learned  judges  of 
evidence,  who  have  thought  no  such  thino;.  It 
would  be  absurd  to  attempt  to  discuss  that 
momentous  story  as  a  side-issue  in  a  review.  It 
is  enough  to  have  pointed  out  that  Professor 
Huxley  discusses  it  without  even  taking  into 
account  the  statements  of  the  very  narrative  on 
which  he  relies.  The  manner  in  which  he  sets 
aside  St  Paul  is  equally  reckless  : — 

'•'  According  to  his  own  showing,  Paul,  in  the  vigour 
of  his  manhood,  with  every  means  of  becoming  ac- 
quainted, at  first  hand,  with  the  evidence  of  eye-wit- 
nesses, not  merely  refused  to  credit  them,  but  '  perse- 
cuted the  Church  of  God  and  made  havoc  of  it.'  .  .  . 
Yet  this  strange  man,  because  he  has  a  vision  one  day, 
at  once,  and  with  equally  headlong  zeal,  flies  to  the 
opposite  pole  of  opinion."^ 

"  A  vision ! "  The  whole  question  is,  What 
vision  ?  How  can  Professor  Huxley  be  sure 
that  no  vision  could  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
justify  a  man  in  acting  on  it  ?     If,  as  we  are 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  282. 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM.  95 

told,  our  Lord  personally  appeared  to  St  Paul, 
spoke  to  him,  and  gave  him  specific  commands, 
was  he  to  disbelieve  his  own  eyes  and  ears,  as 
well  as  his  own  conscience,  and  go  up  to  Jeru- 
salem to  cross  -  examine  Peter  and  John  and 
James  ?  If  the  vision  was  a  real  one,  he  was  at 
once  under  orders,  and  had  to  obey  our  Lord's 
injunctions.  It  is,  to  say  the  least,  rash,  if  not 
presumptuous,  for  Professor  Huxley  to  declare 
that  such  a  vision  as  St  Paul  had  would  not  have 
convinced  him ;  and  at  all  events  the  question 
is  not  disposed  of  by  calling  the  manifestation 
"a  vision."  Two  things  are  certain  about  St 
Paul.  One  is  that  he  was  in  the  confidence  of 
the  Pharisees,  and  was  their  trusted  agent  in 
persecuting  the  Christians ;  and  the  other  is 
that  he  was  afterwards  in  the  confidence  of  the 
Apostles,  and  knew  all  their  side  of  the  case. 
He  holds,  therefore,  the  unique  position  of  hav- 
ing had  equal  access  to  all  that  could  be  alleged 
on  both  sides ;  and  the  result  is  that,  being  fully 
acquainted  with  all  that  the  Pharisees  could 
urge  against  the  resurrection,  he  nevertheless 
gave  up  his  whole  life  to  attesting  its  truth,  and 
threw  in  his  lot,  at  the  cost  of  martyrdom,  with 
those  whom  he  had  formerly  persecuted.  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  reminds  us  that  he  did  all  this  in 
the   full   vigour   of  manhood,   and   in   spite   of 


96  CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

strong,  and  even  violent,  prejudices.  This  is 
not  a  witness  to  be  put  aside  in  Professor  Hux- 
ley's offhand  manner. 

But  the  strangest  part  of  Professor  Huxley's 
article  remains  to  be  noticed  ;  and  so  far  as  the 
main  point  at  issue  between  us  is  concerned,  I 
need  hardly  have  noticed  anything  else.  He 
proceeds  to  a  long  and  intricate  discussion,  quite 
needless,  as  I  think,  for  his  main  object,  respect- 
ing the  relations  between  the  Nazarenes,  Ebion- 
ites,  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians,  first  in  the 
time  of  Justin  Martyr,  and  then  of  St  Paul.  Into 
this  discussion,  in  the  course  of  which  he  makes 
assumptions  which,  as  Holtzmann  will  tell  him, 
are  as  much  questioned  by  the  German  criticism 
on  which  he  relies  as  by  English  theologians,  it 
is  unnecessary  for  me  to  follow  him.  The  object 
of  it  is  to  establish  a  conclusion,  which  is  all 
with  which  I  am  concerned.  That  conclusion 
is,  that  "  if  the  primitive  Nazarenes  of  whom  the 
Acts  speaks  were  orthodox  Jews,  what  sort  of 
probability  can  there  be  that  Jesus  was  anything 
else  ?  "  ^  But  what  more  is  necessary  for  the  pur- 
pose of  my  argument  ?  To  say,  indeed,  that  this 
a  priori  probability  places  us  "  in  a  position  to 
form  a  safe  judgment  of  the  limits  within  which 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  must  have 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  302. 


CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM.  97 

been  confined,"  ^  is  to  beg  a  great  question,  for 
it  assumes  that  our  Lord  could  not  have  tran- 
scended those  limits  unless  His  disciples  tran- 
scended them  simultaneously  with  Him.  But  if 
our  Lord's  beliefs  were  those  of  an  orthodox  Jew, 
we  certainly  know  enough  of  them  to  be  quite 
sure  that  they  involved  a  denial  of  Professor 
Huxley's  Agnosticism.  An  orthodox  Jew  certain- 
ly believed  in  God,  and  in  his  responsibility  to 
God,  and  in  a  Divine  Eevelation  and  a  Divine 
Law.  It  is,  says  Professor  Huxley,  "  extremely 
probable"  that  He  appealed  "to  those  noble  con- 
ceptions of  religion  which  constituted  the  pith 
and  kernel  of  the  teaching  of  the  great  prophets 
of  His  nation  seven  hundred  years  earlier."  But 
if  so,  His  first  principles  involved  the  assertion  of 
religious  realities  which  an  Agnostic  refuses  to 
acknowledge.  Professor  Huxley  has,  in  fact, 
dragged  his  readers  through  this  thorny  question 
of  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  in  order  to 
establish,  at  the  end  of  it,  and  as  it  seems  quite 
unconsciously,  an  essential  part  of  the  very 
allegation  which  I  originally  made.  I  said  that 
a  person  who  "  knows  nothing  "  of  God  asserts 
the  belief  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  to  have  been 
unfounded,  repudiates  His  example,  and  denies 
His  authority.      Professor  Huxley,  in  order  to 

^  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  298. 
G 


98  CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

answer  this  contention,  offers  to  prove  with  great 
elaboration  that  Jesus  was  an  orthodox  Jew,  and 
consequently  that  His  belief  did  involve  what  an 
Agnostic  rejects.  How  much  beyond  these  ele- 
mentary truths  Jesus  taught  is  a  further  and 
a  distinct  question.  What  I  was  concerned  to 
maintain  is,  that  a  man  cannot  be  an  Agnostic 
with  respect  to  even  the  elementary  truths  of  reli- 
gion without  rejecting  the  example  and  authority 
of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  Professor  Huxley,  though 
he  still  endeavours  to  avoid  facing  the  fact,  has 
established  it  by  a  roundabout  method  of  his 
own. 

I  suppose  I  must  also  reply  to  Professor  Hux- 
ley's further  challenge  respecting  my  belief  in 
the  story  of  the  Gadarene  swine,  though  the 
difficulty  of  which  he  makes  so  much  seems  to 
me  too  trivial  to  deserve  serious  notice.  He  says 
"there  are  two  stories,  one  in  *  Mark'  and  '  Luke,' 
and  the  other  in  'Matthew.'  In  the  former  .  .  . 
there  is  one  possessed  man,  in  the  latter  there 
are  two,"  ^  and  he  asks  me  which  I  believe  ?  My 
answer  is,  that  I  believe  both,  and  that  the  sup- 
position of  there  being  any  inconsistency  between 
them  can  only  arise  on  that  mechanical  view  of 
inspiration  from  which  Professor  Huxley  seems 
unable  to  shake  himself  free.     Certainly   "  the 

^  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  304. 


CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM.  99 

most  unabashed  of  reconcilers  cannot  well  sa}^ 
that  one  man  is  the  same  as  two,  or  two  as  one;"  ^ 
but  no  one  need   be  abashed  to  say  that  the 
greater  number  includes  the  less,  and  that  if  two 
men  met  our  Lord,  one  certainly  did.     If  I  go 
into  the  operating-theatre  of  King's  College  Hos- 
pital, and  see  an  eminent  surgeon  perform  a  new 
or  rare  operation  on  one  or  two  patients,  and  if 
I  tell  a  friend  afterwards  that  I  saw  the  surgeon 
perform  such  and  such  an  operation  on  a  patient, 
will  he  feel  in  any  perplexity  if  he  meets  another 
spectator  half  an  hour  afterwards  who  says  he 
saw  the  operation  performed  on  two  patients  ? 
All  that  I  should  have  been  thinking  of  was  the 
nature   of  the  operation,  which  is  as  well  de- 
scribed by  reference  to  one  patient  as  to  half  a 
dozen ;  and  similarly  St  Mark  and  St  Luke  may 
have  thought  that  the  onl}'-  important  point  was 
the  nature  of  the  miracle  itself,   and  not   the 
number  of  possessed  men  who  were  the  subjects 
of  it.     It  is  quite  unnecessary,  therefore,  for  me 
to  consider  all  the  elaborate  dilemmas  in  which 
Professor  Huxley  would  entangle  me  respecting 
the  relative  authority  of  the  first  three  Gospels. 
As  two  includes  one,  and  as  both  witnesses  are 
in  my  judgment  equally  to  be  trusted,  I  adopt 
the  supposition  which  includes  the  statements  of 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  306. 


100  CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

both.  It  is  a  pure  assumption  that  inspiration 
requires  verbal  accuracy  in  the  reporting  of  every 
detail,  and  an  assumption  quite  inconsistent  with 
our  usual  tests  of  truth.  Just  as  no  miracle  has 
saved  the  texts  of  the  Scriptures  from  corruption 
in  secondary  points,  so  no  miracle  has  been 
wrought  to  exclude  the  ordinary  variations  of 
truthful  reporters  in  the  Gospel  narratives.  But 
a  miracle,  in  my  belief,  has  been  wrought,  in 
inspiring  four  men  to  give,  within  the  compass 
of  their  brief  narratives,  such  a  picture  of  the 
life  and  work  and  teaching,  of  the  death  and 
resurrection,  of  the  Son  of  man  as  to  illumi- 
nate all  human  existence  for  the  future,  and 
to  enable  men  "  to  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  and  believing  to  have  life  through  His 
name." 

It  is  with  different  feelings  from  those  which 
Professor  Huxley  provokes  that  I  turn  for  a 
while  to  Mrs  Humphry  Ward's  article  on  "  The 
New  Reformation."  Since  he  adopts  that  article 
as  a  sufficient  confutation  of  mine,  I  feel  obliged 
to  notice  it,  though  I  am  sorry  to  appear  in  any 
position  of  antagonism  to  its  author.  Apart 
from  other  considerations,  I  am  under  much 
obligation  to  Mrs  Ward  for  the  valuable  series 
of  articles  which  she  contributed  to  the  '  Dic- 
tionary   of    Christian    Biography,'    under    my 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM.  101 

editorship,  upon  the  obscure  but  interesting 
history  of  the  Goths  in  Spain.  I  trust  that,  in 
her  account  of  the  effect  upon  Eobert  Elsmere 
and  Merriman  of  absorption  in  that  barbarian 
scene,  she  is  not  describing  her  own  experience 
and  the  source  of  her  own  aberrations.  But  I 
feel  especially  bound  to  treat  her  argument  with 
consideration,  and  to  waive  any  opposition  which 
can  be  avoided.  I  am  sorry  that  she  too 
questions  the  possibility  in  this  country  of  ''a 
scientific — that  is  to  say,  an  unprejudiced,  an 
unbiassed  —  study  of  theology,  under  present 
conditions,"  and  I  should  have  hoped  that  she 
would  have  had  too  much  confidence  in  her 
colleagues  in  the  important  work  to  which  I 
refer  to  cast  this  slur  upon  them.  Their  la- 
bours have,  in  fact,  been  received  by  German 
scholars  of  all  schools  with  sufficient  apprecia- 
tion to  render  their  vindication  unnecessary ; 
and  if  Professor  Huxley  can  extend  his  study 
of  German  theological  literature  much  beyond 
Zeller's  ' Yortriige '  of  "a  quarter  of  a  century 
ago  "  or  Eitschl's  writings  of  "  nearly  forty  years 
ago,"  he  will  not  find  himself  countenanced  by 
Church  historians  in  Germany  in  his  contempt 
for  the  recent  contributions  of  English  scholars 
to  early  Church  History.  However,  it  is  the 
more  easy  for  me  to  waive  all  difi'erences  of  this 


102  CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

nature  with  Mrs  Ward,  because  it  is  unnecessary 
for  me  to  look  beyond  her  article  for  its  own 
refutation.     Her   main   contention,    or   that   at 
least  for  which  Professor  Huxley  appeals  to  her, 
seems  to  be,  that  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  the 
rationalistic  movement  of  Germany  to  have  been 
defeated  in  the  sphere  of  New  Testament  criti- 
cism, and  she  selects  more  particularly  for  her 
protest   a   recent   statement  in   the  '  Quarterly 
Eeview '  that  this  criticism,  and  particularly  the 
movement  led  by  Baur,  is  "  an  attack  which  has 
failed."     The  Quarterly  Ee viewer  may  be  left  to 
take  care  of  himself ;  but  I  would  only  ask,  What 
is  the  evidence  which  Mrs  Ward  adduces  to  the 
contrary  ?     It  may  be  summed  up  in  two  words 
— a  prophecy  and  a  romance.      She   does   not 
adduce  any  evidence  that  the  Tubingen  school, 
which  is  the  one  we  are  chiefly  concerned  with, 
did  not  fail  to  establish  its  specific  contentions ; 
on  the  contrary,  she  says  (p.  472)  that  "  history 
protested,"  and   she   goes   on   to  prophesy  the 
success  of  other  speculations  which  arose  from 
that   protest ;    concluding   with    an    imaginary 
sketch,  like  that  with  which  'Eobert  Elsmere ' 
ends,  of  a  ''new  Eeformation  preparing,  strug- 
gling into  utterance  and  being,  all  around  us." 
"It  is  close  upon  us — it  is  prepared  by  all  the 
forces  of  history  and  mind — its  rise  sooner  or 


CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM.  103 

later  is  inevitable."  This  is  prophecy,  but  it  is 
not  argument  ;  and  a  little  attention  to  Mrs 
Ward's  own  statements  will  exhibit  a  very 
different  picture.  The  Christian  representative 
in  her  dialogue  exclaims  : — 

"  What  is  the  whole  history  of  German  criticism 
but  a  series  of  brilliant  failures,  from  Strauss  down- 
wards ?  One  theorist  follows  another — now  Mark  is 
uppermost  as  the  Ur-Evangelist,  now  Matthew — now 
the  Synoptics  are  sacrificed  to  St  John,  now  St  John 
to  the  Synoptics.  Baur  relegates  one  after  another 
of  the  Epistles  to  the  second  century  because  his 
theory  cannot  do  with  them  in  the  first.  Harnack 
tells  you  that  Baur's  theory  is  all  wrong,  and  that 
Thessalonians  and  Philippians  must  go  back  again. 
Volkmar  sweeps  together  Gospels  and  Epistles  in  a 
heap  towards  the  middle  of  the  second  century  as  the 
earliest  date  for  almost  all  of  them ;  and  Dr  Abbott, 
who,  as  we  are  told,  has  absorbed  all  the  learning  of 
the  Germans,  puts  Mark  before  70  A.D.,  Matthew  just 
about  70  A.D.,  and  Luke  about  80  A.D. ;  Strauss's 
mythical  theory  is  dead  and  buried  by  common  con- 
sent ;  Baur's  tendency  theory  is  much  the  same ; 
Eenan  will  have  none  of  the  Tubingen  school ;  Volk- 
mar is  already  antiquated ;  and  Pfleiderer's  fancies  are 
now  in  the  order  of  the  day."  -^ 

A  better  statement  could  hardly  be  wanted  of 
what  is  meant  by  an  attack  having  failed ;  and 
now  let  the  reader  observe  how  Merriman  in  the 

1  Nineteenth  Century,  March  1889,  p.  462. 


104  CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

dialogue  meets  it.  Does  he  deny  any  of  those 
allegations  ?  Not  one.  "  Very  well,"  he  says, 
"  let  us  leave  the  matter  there  for  the  present. 
Suppose  we  go  to  the  Old  Testament ; "  and  then 
he  proceeds  to  dwell  on  the  concessions  made 
to  the  newest  critical  school  of  Germany  by  a 
few  distinguished  English  divines  at  the  Church 
Congress  of  1888.  I  must,  indeed,  dispute  Mrs 
Ward's  representation  of  that  rather  one-sided 
debate  as  amounting  to  "  a  collapse  of  English 
orthodoxy,"  or  as  justifying  her  statement  that 
"the  Church  of  England  practically  gives  its 
verdict"  in  favour,  for  instance,  of  the  school 
which  regards  the  Pentateuch,  or  the  Hexateuch, 
as  "  the  peculiar  product  of  that  Jewish  religious 
movement  which,  beginning  with  Josiah,  .  .  . 
yields  its  final  fruits  long  after  the  exile."  ^  Not 
only  has  the  Church  of  England  given  no  such 
verdict,  but  German  criticism  has  as  yet  given 
no  such  verdict.  For  example,  in  the  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Old  Testament  by  one  of  the  first 
Hebrew  scholars  of  Germany,  Professor  Hermann 
Strack,  contained  in  the  valuable  '  Handbook  of 
the  Theological  Sciences,'  edited,  with  the  assist- 
ance of  several  distinguished  scholars,  by  Professor 
Zockler,  I  find  at  p.  215  of  the  third  edition, 
published  in  1889,  the  following  brief  summary 

1  Nineteenth  Century,  March  1889,  pp.  464,  465. 


CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM.  105 

of  what,  in  Dr  Strack's  opinion,  is  the  result  of 
the  controversy  so  far  : — 

"  The  future  results  of  further  labours  in  the  field 
of  Pentateuch  criticism  cannot,  of  course,  be  predicted 
in  particulars.  But,  in  spite  of  the  great  assent  which 
the  view  of  Graf  and  Wellhausen  at  present  enjoys, 
we  are  nevertheless  convinced  that  it  will  not  per- 
manently lead  to  any  essential  alteration  in  the  con- 
ception which  has  hitherto  prevailed  of  the  history  of 
Israel,  and  in  particular  of  the  work  of  Moses.  On 
the  other  hand,  one  result  will  certainly  remain,  that  the 
Pentateuch  was  not  composed  by  Moses  himself,  but  was 
compiled  by  later  editors  from  various  original  sources. 
.  .  .  But  the  very  variety  of  these  sources  may  be  ap- 
plied in  favour  of  the  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch." 

In  other  words,  it  may  be  said  that  Dr  Strack 
regards  it  as  established  that  "  The  Law  of 
Moses  "  is  a  title  of  the  same  character  as  "The 
Psalms  of  David,"  the  whole  collection  being 
denominated  from  its  principal  author.  But  he 
is  convinced  that  the  general  conclusions  of  the 
prevalent  school  of  Old  Testament  criticism, 
which  involve  an  entire  subversion  of -our  present 
conceptions  of  Old  Testament  history,  will  not 
be  maintained.  In  the  face  of  this  opinion,  it 
does  not  seem  presumptuous  to  express  an  ap- 
prehension that  the  younger  school  of  Hebrew 
scholars  in  England,  of  whose  concessions  Mrs 
Ward  makes  so  much,  have  gone  too  far  and  too 
fast ;  and,  at  all  events,  it  is  clear  from  what  Dr 


106  CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

Strack  says — and  I  might  quote  also  Delitzsch 
and  Dillmann  —  that  it  is  much  too  sood  to 
assume  that  the  school  of  whose  conquests  Mrs 
Ward  boasts  is  supreme.  But,  even  supposing 
it  were,  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  admitted 
and  undoubted  failures  on  the  other  side,  in  the 
field  of  New  Testament  criticism  ?  If  it  be  the 
fact,  as  Mrs  Ward  does  not  deny,  that  not  only 
Strauss's  but  Baur  s  theories  and  conclusions  are 
now  rejected  ;  if  it  has  been  proved  that  Baur  was 
entirely  wrong  in  supposing  that  the  greater  part 
of  the  New  Testament  books  were  late  produc- 
tions, written  with  a  controversial  purpose — what 
is  the  use  of  appealing  to  the  alleged  success  of 
the  German  critics  in  another  field  ?  If  Baur  is 
confuted,  he  is  confuted,  and  there  is  an  end  of 
his  theories  ;  though  he  may  have  been  useful, 
as  rash  theorisers  have  often  been,  in  stimulating 
investigation.  In  the  same  valuable  Handbook 
of  Dr  Zockler's,  already  quoted,  I  find,  under 
the  History  of  the  Science  of  Introduction  to 
the  New  Testament,  the  heading  (p.  15,  vol.  i. 
pt.  2),  "  Eesult  of  the  Controversy  and  End  of 
the  Tubingen  School." 

"  The  Tiibingen  school,"  the  writer  concludes  (p. 
20),  "could  not  but  fall  as  soon  as  its  assumptions 
were  recognised  and  given  up.  As  Hilgenfeld  con- 
fesses, '  it  went  to  an  unjustifiable  length,  and  inflicted 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM.  107 

too  deep  wounds  on  the  Christian  faith.  ...  No 
enduring  results  in  matters  of  substance  have  been 
produced  by  it.' " 

Such  is  the  judgment  of  an  authoritative 
German  Handbook  on  the  writer  to  whom,  in 
Merriman's  opinion,  "we  owe  all  that  we  really 
hnoiv  at  the  23resent  moment  about  the  New 
Testament;"  as  though  the  Christian  thought 
and  life  of  eighteen  hundred  years  had  produced 
no  knowledge  on  that  subject ! 

In  fact,  Mrs  Ward's  comparison  seems  to  me 
to  point  in  exactly  the  opposite  direction. 

"I  say  to  myself,"  says  her  spokesman  (p.  466), 
"  it  has  taken  some  thirty  years  for  German  critical 
science  to  conquer  English  opinion  in  the  matter  of 
the  Old  Testament.  .  .  .  How  much  longer  will  it 
take  before  we  feel  the  victory  of  the  same  science 
.  .  .  with  regard  to  that  history  which  is  the  natural 
heir  and  successor  of  the  Jewish — the  history  of  Chris- 
tian origins  ? " 

Eemembering  that  the  main  movement  of  New 
Testament  criticism  in  Germany  dates  not  thirty, 
but  more  than  fifty  years  back,  and  that  thirty 
years  ago  Baur's  school  enjoyed  the  same  ap- 
plause in  Germany  as  that  of  Wellhausen  does 
now,  does  it  not  seem  more  in  conformity  with 
experience  and  with  probability  to  anticipate 
that,  as  the  Germans  themselves,  with  longer 
experience,   find   they   had   been   too   hasty  in 


108  CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

following  Baur,  so,  with  an  equally  long  ex- 
perience, they  may  find  they  have  similarly  been 
too  hasty  in  accepting  Wellhausen  ?  The  fever 
of  revolutionar}^  criticism  on  the  New  Testament 
was  at  its  height  after  thirty  years,  and  the 
science  has  subsided  into  comparative  health 
after  twenty  more.  The  fever  of  the  revolu- 
tionary criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  is  now 
at  its  height,  but  the  parallel  suggests  a  similar 
return  to  a  more  sober  and  common-sense  state 
of  mind.  The  most  famous  name,  in  short,  of 
German  New  Testament  criticism  is  now  as- 
sociated with  exploded  theories ;  and  we  are 
asked  to  shut  our  eyes  to  this  undoubted  fact 
because  Mrs  Ward  prophesies  a  different  fate  for 
the  name  now  most  famous  in  Old  Testament 
criticism.  I  prefer  the  evidence  of  established 
fact  to  that  of  romantic  prophecy. 

But  these  observations  suggest  another  con- 
sideration, which  has  a  very  important  bearing 
on  that  general  disparagement  of  English  the- 
ology and  theologians  which  Professor  Huxley 
expresses  so  offensively,  and  which  Mrs  Ward 
encourages.  She  and  Professor  Huxley  talk  as 
if  German  theology  were  all  rationalistic,  and 
English  theology  alone  conservative.  Professor 
Huxley  invites  his  readers  to  study  in  Mrs 
Ward's  article 


CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM.  109 

"  the  results  of  critical  investigation,  as  it  is  carried  out 
among  those  theologians  who  are  men  of  science  and 
not  mere  counsel  for  creeds ; "  and  he  appeals  to  "  the 
works  of  scholars  and  theologians  of  the  highest  re- 
pute in  the  only  two  countries,  Holland  and  Germany, 
in  which,  at  the  present  time,  professors  of  theology 
are  to  be  found,  whose  tenure  of  their  posts  does  not 
depend  upon  the  results  to  which  their  inquiries  lead 
them."^ 

Well,  passing  over  the  insult  to  theologians  in 
all  other  countries,  what  is  the  consequence  of 
this  freedom  in  Germany  itself?  Is  it  seen  that 
all  learned  and  distinguished  theologians  in  that 
country  are  of  the  opinions  of  Professor  Huxley 
and  Mrs  Ward?  The  quotations  I  have  given 
will  serve  to  illustrate  the  fact  that  the  con- 
trary is  the  case.  If  any  one  wants  vigorous, 
learned,  and  satisfactory  answers  to  Professor 
Huxley  and  Mrs  Ward,  Germany  is  the  best 
place  to  which  he  can  go  for  them.  There  are 
plenty  of  professors  and  theologians  in  Germany 
who  adhere  substantially  to  the  old  Christian 
faith,  and  who  are  at  least  as  distinguished,  as 
learned,  as  laborious,  as  those  who  adhere  to 
sceptical  opinions.  What  is,  by  general  consent, 
the  most  valuable  and  comprehensive  work  on 
Christian  theology  and  Church  history  which  the 
last  two  generations  of  German   divines   have 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  pp.  263,  266. 


110  CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

produced  ?  It  is  Herzog's  '  Eeal-Encyclopadie 
fiir  protestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche/  of 
which  the  second  edition,  in  eighteen  large 
volumes,  was  completed  about  five  years  ago. 
But  it  is  edited  and  written  in  harmony  with 
the  general  belief  of  Protestant  Christians.  Who 
have  done  the  chief  exegetical  work  of  the 
last  two  generations  ?  On  the  rationalistic  side, 
though  not  exclusively  so,  is  the  '  Kurzgefasstes 
exegetisches  Handbuch,'  in  which,  however,  at 
the  present  time,  Dillmann  represents  an  op- 
position on  an  important  point  to  the  view  of 
Wellhausen  respecting  the  Pentateuch ;  but  on 
the  other  side  we  have  Meyer  on  the  New 
Testament — almost  the  standard  work  on  the 
subject — Keil  and  Delitzsch  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  a  great  part  of  the  New,  Lange's 
immense  '  Bibelwerk,'  and  the  valuable  '  Kurzge- 
fasster  Kommentar '  on  the  whole  Scripture,  in- 
cluding the  Apocrypha,  now  in  course  of  publi- 
cation under  the  editorship  of  Professors  Strack 
and  Zockler.  The  Germans  have  more  time  for 
theoretical  investigations  than  English  theolo- 
gians, who  generally  have  a  great  deal  of  prac- 
tical work  to  do ;  and  German  professors,  in 
their  numerous  universities,  compete  against  one 
another  in  the  race  for  the  greatest  novelty. 
But  it  was  by  German  theologians  that  Baur  was 


CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM.  Ill 

refuted ;  it  is  by  German  Hebraists  like  Strack 
that  Wellhausen  and  Kiienen  are  now  being  best 
resisted. 

When,  in  fact,  Professor  Huxley  and  Mrs 
Ward  would  leave  an  impression  that,  because 
German  theological  chairs  are  not  shackled  by 
articles  like  our  own,  therefore  the  best  German 
thought  and  criticism  is  on  the  rationalistic 
side,  they  are  conveying  an  entirely  prejudiced 
representation  of  the  facts.  The  effect  of  the 
German  system  is  to  make  everything  an  open 
question — as  though  there  were  no  such  thing 
as  a  settled  system  of  the  spiritual  universe,  and 
no  established  facts  in  Christian  history — and 
thus  to  enable  any  man  of  great  ability,  with  a 
sceptical  turn,  to  unsettle  a  generation  and  leave 
the  edifice  of  belief  to  be  built  up  again.  But 
the  edifice  is,  none  the  less,  built  up  again,  and 
Germans  take  as  large  a  part  in  rebuilding  it  as  in 
undermining  it.  Because  Professor  Huxley  and 
Mrs  Ward  can  quote  great  German  names  on  one 
side,  let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  just  as  able 
German  names  can  be  quoted  on  the  other  side. 
Take,  for  instance,  Harnack,  to  whom  Mrs  Ward 
appeals,  and  whose  'History  of  Dogmas'  Professor 
Huxley  quotes.  Harnack  himself,  in  reviewing 
the  history  of  his  science,  pays  an  honourable 
tribute  to  the  late  eminent  divine  Thomasius, 


112  CHRISTIANITY    AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

whose  '  History  of  Dogmas '  was  recently  re- 
published after  his  death,  and  who  wrote  in  the 
devoutest  spirit  of  the  Lutheran  communion. 
Of  course  Harnack  regards  his  point  of  view  as 
narrow  and  unsatisfactory;  but  he  adds  that 
"  equally  great  are  the  valuable  qualities  of  this 
work  in  particular,  in  regard  of  its  exemplar- 
ily  clear  exposition,  its  eminent  learning,  and 
the  author's  living  comprehension  of  religious 
problems."  A  man  who  studies  the  history  of 
Christian  theology  in  Harnack  without  refer- 
ence to  Thomasius  will  do  no  justice  to  his 
subject. 

But,  says  Mrs  Ward,  there  is  no  real  historical 
apprehension  in  the  orthodox  writers,  whether 
of  Germany  or  England,  and  the  whole  problem 
is  one  of  "  historical  translation."  Every  state- 
ment, every  apparent  miracle,  everything  dif- 
ferent from  daily  experience,  must  be  translated 
into  the  language  of  that  experience,  or  else  we 
have  not  got  real  history.  But  this,  it  will  be 
observed,  under  an  ingenious  disguise,  is  only 
the  old  method  of  assuming  that  nothing  really 
miraculous  can  have  happened,  and  that  there- 
fore everything  which  seems  supernatural  must 
be  explained  away  into  the  natural.  In  other 
words,  it  is  once  more  begging  the  whole 
question  at  issue.     Mrs  Ward  accuses  orthodox 


CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM.  113 

writers  of  this  fallacy ;  but  it  is  really  her  own. 
Merriman  is  represented  as  saying  that  he  learnt 
from  his  Oxford  teachers  that 

"  it  was  imperatively  right  to  endeavour  to  disentangle 
miracle  from  history,  the  marvellous  from  the  real,  in 
a  document  of  the  fourth,  or  third,  or  second  century. 
.  .  .  But  the  contents  of  the  New  Testament,  however 
marvellous  and  however  apparently  akin  to  what  sur- 
rounds them  on  either  side,  were  to  be  treated  from 
an  entirely  different  point  of  view.  In  the  one  case 
there  must  be  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  historian  to 
discover  the  historical  under  the  miraculous,  or  he 
would  be  failing  in  his  duty  as  a  sane  and  competent 
observer ;  in  the  other  case  there  must  be  a  desire,  a 
strong  '  affection,'  on  the  part  of  the  theologian,  to- 
wards proving  the  miraculous  to  be  historical,  or  he 
would  be  failing  in  his  duty  as  a  Christian."  -^ 

Mrs  Ward  has  entirely  mistaken  the  point  of 
view  of  Christian  science.  Certainly  if  any 
occurrence,  anywhere,  can  be  explained  by 
natural  causes,  there  is  a  strong  presumption 
that  it  ought  to  be  so  explained ;  for  though  a 
natural  effect  may  be  due  in  a  given  case  to 
supernatural  action,  it  is  a  fixed  rule  of  philos- 
ophising, according  to  Newton,  that  we  should 
not  assume  unknown  causes  when  known  ones 
suffice.  But  the  whole  case  of  the  Christian 
reasoner  is  that  the  records  of  the  New  Testa- 

1  Nineteenth  Century,  March  1889,  p.  457. 
H 


114  CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM. 

ment  defy  any  attempt  to  explain  them  by 
natural  causes.  The  German  critics  Hase, 
Strauss,  Baur,  Hausrath,  Keim,  all  have  made 
the  attempt,  and  each,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
others,  and  finally  of  Pfleiderer,  has  offered  an 
insufficient  solution  of  the  problem.  The  case 
of  the  Christian  is  not  that  the  evidence  ought 
not  to  be  explained  naturally,  and  translated 
into  everyday  experience,  but  that  it  cannot  be. 
But  it  is  Mrs  Ward  who  assumes  beforehand 
that  simply  because  the  '  Life  and  Times  of 
Jesus  the  Messiah,'  by  that  learned  scholar  and 
able  writer,  Dr  Edersheim,  whose  recent  loss  is 
so  much  to  be  deplored,  does  not  ''  translate " 
all  the  Gospel  narratives  into  natural  occurrences, 
therefore  it  is  essentially  bad  history.  The  story 
has  been  the  same  throughout.  The  whole 
German  critical  school,  from  the  venerable  Karl 
Hase — and  much  as  I  differ  from  his  conclusions, 
I  cannot  mention  without  a  tribute  of  respect 
and  gratitude  the  name  of  that  great  scholar, 
the  veteran  of  all  these  controversies,  whose 
*  Leben  Jesu,'  published  several  years  before 
Strauss  was  heard  of,  is  still  perhaps  the  most 
valuable  book  of  reference  on  the  subject — all, 
from  that  eminent  man  downwards,  have  by 
their  own  repeated  confession  started  from  the 
assumption   that   the   miraculous  is  impossible. 


CHRISTIANITY   AND    AGNOSTICISM.  115 

and  that  the  Gospels  must,  by  some  device  or 
other,  be  so  interpreted  as  to  explain  it  away. 
"  Affection  "  there  is  and  ought  to  be  in  orthodox 
writers  for  venerable,  profound,  and  consoling 
beliefs ;  but  they  start  from  no  such  invincible 
prejudice,  and  they  are  pledged  by  their  prin- 
ciples to  accept  whatever  interpretation  may  be 
really  most  consonant  with  the  facts. 

I  have  only  one  word  to  say,  finally,  in  reply 
to  Professor  Huxley.  I  am  very  glad  to  hear 
that  he  has  always  advocated  the  reading  of  the 
Bible,  and  the  diffusion  of  its  study  among  the 
people  ;  but  I  must  say  that  he  goes  to  work  in 
a  very  strange  way  in  order  to  promote  this 
result.  If  he  could  succeed  in  persuading  people 
that  the  Gospels  are  untrustworthy  collections 
of  legends,  made  by  unknown  authors,  that 
St  Paul's  Epistles  were  the  writings  of  "a 
strange  man,"  who  had  no  sound  capacity  for 
judging  of  evidence,  or,  with  Mrs  Ward's  friends, 
that  the  Pentateuch  is  a  late  forgery  of  Jewish 
scribes,  I  do  not  think  the  people  at  large  would 
be  likely  to  follow  his  well-meant  exhortations. 
But  I  venture  to  remind  him  that  the  English 
Church  has  anticipated  his  anxiety  in  this 
matter.  Three  hundred  years  ago,  by  one  of 
the  greatest  strokes  of  real  government  ever 
exhibited,  the  public  reading  of  the  whole  Bible 


116  CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM. 

was  imposed  upon  Englishmen ;  and  by  the 
public  reading  of  the  Lessons  on  Sunday  alone, 
the  chief  portions  of  the  Bible,  from  first  to 
last,  have  become  stamped  upon  the  minds  of 
English-speaking  people  in  a  degree  in  which, 
as  the  Germans  themselves  acknowledge,^  they 
are  far  behind  us.  He  has  too  much  reason 
for  his  lament  over  the  melancholy  spectacle 
presented  by  the  intestine  quarrels  of  Church- 
men over  matters  of  mere  ceremonial.  But 
when  he  argues  from  this  that  the  clergy  of  our 
day  "  can  have  but  little  sympathy  with  the  old 
evangelical  doctrine  of  the  '  open  Bible,' "  he 
might  have  remembered  that  our  own  generation 
of  English  divines  has,  by  the  labour  of  years, 
endeavoured  at  all  events,  whether  successfully 
or  not,  to  place  the  most  correct  version  possible 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  hands  of  the  Eng- 
lish people.  I  agree  with  him  most  cordially 
in  seeing  in  the  wide  diffusion  and  the  unpre- 
judiced study  of  that  sacred  volume  the  best 

1  See  the  Preface  to  Riehm's  well-known  '  Dictionary  of  Bibli- 
cal Antiquity,'  first  edition,  1877,  where  it  is  said  :  "  German 
evangelical  theology  may,  indeed,  always  claim  the  honour  of 
being  the  pioneer  and  guide  of  the  theologians  of  other  nations 
in  the  scientific  and  learned  investigation  of  the  Bible.  But  this 
has  been  of  little  benefit  to  our  own  German  national  culture. 
Knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  Bible,  which  constitute  so 
essential  an  element  of  religious  culture,  remain  its  altogether 
weakest  side.  In  this  respect  we  Germans  stand,  for  instance,  far 
behind  the  English." 


CHRISTIANITY   AND   AGNOSTICISM.  117 

security  for  "true  religion  and  sound  learning." 
It  is  in  the  open  Bible  of  England,  in  the 
general  familiarity  of  all  classes  of  Englishmen 
and  Englishwomen  with  it,  that  the  chief  obstacle 
has  been  found  to  the  spread  of  the  fantastic 
critical  theories  by  which  he  is  fascinated ;  and, 
instead  of  Englishmen  translating  the  Bible  into 
the  language  of  their  natural  experiences,  it  will 
in  the  future,  as  in  the  past,  translate  them  and 
their  experiences  into  a  higher  and  a  super- 
natural region. 


118 


THE  HISTOEICAL  CEITICISM  OF  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT. 


The  following  article,  from  the  '  Quarterly  Review '  of 
October  1886,  will  furnish,  it  is  hoped,  some  useful  in- 
formation on  the  results  of  modern  criticism  respecting 
the  ^ew  Testament.  Professor  Huxley  has  warned  his 
readers,  in  one  of  the  articles  to  which  the  preceding 
papers  are  a  reply,  "  against  any  reliance  upon  Dr  Wace's 
statements  as  to  the  results  arrived  at  by  modern  criticism," 
adding  magisterially  that  "  they  are  as  gravely  as  surpris- 
ingly erroneous."  The  statements  quoted  in  the  following 
article,  not  only  from  Dr  Salmon  but  from  Dr  Holtzmann, 
to  whose  authority  Professor  Huxley  himself  appeals,  will 
enable  the  reader  to  estimate  the  justice  of  this  warning, 
and  to  judge  for  himself  of  the  state  of  the  controversy. 
The  following  are  the  titles  of  the  two  works  reviewed, 
the  first  being  the  standard  English  work  on  the  subject, 
and  the  latter  the  standard  German  work  from  the  rational- 
istic school : — 

1.  'A  Historical  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Books 
of  the  New  Testament ; '  being  an  expansion  of  Lectures  de- 
livered in  the  Divinity  School  of  the  University  of  Dublin. 
By  George  Salmon,  D.D.,  F.R.S.,  Regius  Professor  of 
Divinity.     Second  edition.     London,   1886. 

2.  '  Lehrbuch  der  historisch-critischen  Einleitung  in  das 
Neue  Testament.'  Von  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Dr  und  ord.  Pro- 
fessor der  Theologie  in  Strassburg.     Freiburg  i.  B.,  1885. 


HISTORICAL  CRITICISM  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.     119 

Dr  Salmon's  'Historical  Introduction  to  the 
New  Testament'  is  one  of  those  remarkable 
books  which  can  only  be  produced  at  rare 
intervals,  and  of  which  the  importance  depends 
on  a  singular  combination  in  their  subject- 
matter,  their  authorship,  and  the  circumstances 
in  which  they  appear.  The  subject-matter  in 
this  case  is  perhaps  the  most  important  which 
could  claim  attention  in  the  present  day,  as  it 
mainly  concerns  the  authenticity  and  trust- 
worthiness of  some  of  the  chief  evidence  on 
which  our  Christian  faith  is  founded.  That 
faith  is  not,  indeed,  wholly  dependent  on  early 
documentary  evidence,  as  it  can  appeal  to  broad 
historical  facts  in  its  support,  above  all  to  the 
continuous  testimony  of  the  Church  and  the 
Sacraments.  But,  at  the  same  time,  the  docu- 
ments which  form  the  New  Testament  are 
practically  indispensable  to  Christian  faith,  and 
an  inquiry  into  their  historical  genuineness 
touches  the  very  roots  of  our  religion.  At  the 
present  day  this  inquiry  has  assumed  peculiar 
Lirgency,  in  consequence  of  circumstances  pres- 
ently to  be  noticed  more  particularly ;  and  there 
is  perhaps  no  question  of  greater  practical  import 
in  the  current  controversy  between  Christianity 
and  Infidelity.  It  is  a  question  of  the  facts 
with  which  we  have   to   deal,   and  unless  this 


120  THE   HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

preliminary  point  be  in  some  measure  settled, 
the  great  controversy  can  hardly  be  brought  to 
a  decisive  issue. 

It  is  of  the  utmost  consequence  that  such  an 
inquiry  should  be  in  hands  which  command  full 
attention  and  confidence ;  and  in  this  respect 
the  volume  before  us  answers  the  most  stringent 
requirements  which  could  be  made.  The  name 
of  Dr  Salmon  is  of  European  reputation,  and 
the  weight  it  carries  on  the  present  subject 
is  all  the  greater,  because  that  reputation  was 
originally  gained  in  another  field  of  labour. 
Dr  Salmon  s  works  have  for  many  years  been 
the  standard  treatises  for  advanced  students 
in  some  of  the  highest  branches  of  modern 
mathematical  science.  They  still  hold  their 
ground,  notwithstanding  the  great  progress 
which  has  been  made  in  the  abstruse  subjects 
of  which  some  of  them  treat.  They  have 
been  translated  into  two  or  three  of  the  Con- 
tinental languages  ;  and  the  eminence  they  have 
won  was  marked,  not  long  ago,  by  the  elec- 
tion of  their  author  to  the  rare  distinction  of  a 
member  of  the  French  Institute.  Dr  Salmon's 
modesty  has  precluded  him  from  recording 
this  and  similar  distinctions  on  his  title-page, 
and  we  suspect  he  would  have  found  it  difficult 
to  make  room  for  all  of  them,  and  that  it  was 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  121 

easier  to  omit  them  than  to  make  a  selection. 
But  we  are  glad  to  see  that  in  his  second  edition 
he  has  not  omitted  to  describe  himself  as  a  mem- 
ber of  our  own  Royal  Society ;  and  it  ought  to 
be  borne  in  mind,  in  reading  this  book,  that 
its  author  had  become  one  of  the  most  eminent 
men  of  science  of  our  day  before  he  had  begun 
to  acquire  similar  eminence  as  a  theologian. 

That  it  is  not  necessary,  indeed,  as  Professor 
Huxley  seemed  to  suggest  in  his  recent  contro- 
versy with  Mr  Gladstone,  to  be  a  man  of  science 
in  order  to  be  capable  of  sound  reasoning,  is 
sufficiently  shown  by  the  examples  of  Bishop 
Butler  and  the  late  Bishop  of  Durham,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  fact  that  there  had  beeij  a 
great  deal  of  good  reasoning  in  the  world  before 
the  foundation  of  the  Royal  Society.  But  con- 
sidering the  prevalent  superstitious  worship  of 
science  and  its  high  priests,  it  must  add  to  the 
attention  a  man  can  command  if  he  is  one  of 
the  initiated  in  this  mystery.  Dr  Salmon  speaks 
with  full  authority  in  this  respect,  and  he  is 
one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  many  examples 
around  us,  including  the  present  President  of 
the  Royal  Society,  that  profound  scientific  know- 
ledge is  fully  compatible  with  a  devout  faith 
in  the  creed  of  Christianity.  But  apart  from 
the  authority  which  in  this  respect  his   name 


122  THE    HISTOHICAL   CRITICISM    OF 

commands,  the  tone  of  his  argument  exhibits 
the  best  aspects  of  scientific  thought.  Two  or 
three  volumes  of  sermons,  which  he  had  previ- 
ously published,  were  conspicuous  examples  of 
the  introduction  of  this  scientific  tone  into  theo- 
logical discussion.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  this 
is  one  reason  for  their  having  attracted  less 
attention  than  they  deserve ;  for  few  people 
are  attracted  by  simple  statements  of  truth, 
and  even  our  leading  men  of  science  would 
hardl}^  command  so  wide  an  audience  if  they 
did  not  condescend  to  some  of  the  arts  of 
rhetoric.  But  the  chief  and  almost  unique 
characteristic  of  Dr  Salmon's  sermons  is  that 
they  are  a  simple  elucidation  of  truth.  You 
start,  as  in  some  mathematical  problem,  from 
axioms  so  simple  that  they  seem  almost  common- 
places, and  are  led  on  insensibly  into  the  depths 
of  some  profound  theological  principle.  There 
is  nothing  startling  or  even  attractive  about  the 
opening  methods  of  address ;  but  before  you 
are  aware  of  it,  you  are  convinced  of  some  solemn 
truth  of  theology  or  religion.  We  hope  Dr 
Salmon  will  be  encouraged  to  give  us  some 
more  of  these  sermons,  for  they  are  eminently 
calculated  to  influence  and  convince  thoughtful 
minds  at  the  present  day. 

These  qualities,  however,  are  peculiarly  valu- 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  123 

able  in  dealing  with  such  a  subject  as  that  of 
the  present  volume,  and  they  are  not  less  con- 
spicuously exhibited.  By  dint  of  persistent 
assertion,  the  opponents  of  Christian  belief  re- 
specting the  New  Testament  Scriptures  have 
contrived  to  produce  an  impression,  upon  many 
minds,  that  its  adherents  or  advocates  are  influ- 
enced by  undue  prejudice,  and  are  incapable  of 
judging  scientifically  of  the  questions  at  issue. 
The  fact  of  which  this  impression  is  a  perversion 
will  be  noticed  in  due  course ;  and  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  real  truth  is,  that  the  inveterate 
prejudice  is  on  the  part  of  the  chief  opponents 
of  Christian  tradition.  But  it  is  none  the  less 
valuable  that  the  truth  should  be  maintained, 
as  in  this  volume,  in  a  spirit  which  must  impress 
every  fair  reader  with  the  scientific  calmness  of 
the  writer's  spirit  and  method.  "Although," 
says  the  author  in  his  preface,  "  my  work  may 
be  described  as  apologetic  in  the  sense  that  its 
results  aojree  in  the  main  with  the  traditional 
belief  of  the  Church,  I  can  honestly  say  that  I 
have  not  worked  in  the  spirit  of  an  advocate 
anxious  to  defend  a  foregone  conclusion.  I  have 
aimed  at  making  my  investigations  historical, 
and  at  asserting  nothing  but  what  the  evidence, 
candidly  weighed,  seemed  to  warrant."  The 
tone,  no  less  than  the  method,  of  Dr  Salmon's 


124  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

argument  fully  sustains  this  claim,  and  engages 
from  the  outset  the  reader's  confidence.  One 
feels  one's  self  in  the  hands  of  a  quiet  and  masterly 
guide,  who  is  only  concerned  to  point  out  to  us 
the  facts  with  which  we  have  to  deal,  and  who 
will  not  press  a  single  conclusion  merely  because 
it  conforms  to  his  own  inclination  or  presump- 
tions. On  some  secondary  points,  indeed,  such 
as  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  his  conclusions 
are  more  tentative  than  many  would  have  wished ; 
and  sometimes  we  think  he  might  well  have 
been  more  decisive.  But  his  reserve  on  these 
points  is  at  least  an  illustration  of  the  freedom 
and  scientific  character  of  his  investigations,  and 
adds  weight  to  the  decisive  convictions  to  which 
he  leads  us  on  all  points  of  importance.  In 
discussing  any  question  of  criticism,  Dr  Salmon 
writes  in  just  the  same  manner  as  if  he  were 
investigating  a  problem  in  conic  sections  or  the 
higher  algebra,  except  that  his  discussion  is 
marked  by  grave  suggestions,  and  occasion- 
ally by  enlivening  observations,  for  which  a 
mathematical  work,  except  in  the  hands  of  the 
late  Professor  De  Morgan,  affords  no  oppor- 
tunities. 

It  must  not  be  supposed,  indeed,  because  the 
argument  is  conducted  in  this  scientific  spirit, 
that  the  volume  is  severe  and  difficult  in  style. 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  125 

The  circumstances  under  which  it  has  been 
produced  have  combined  with  the  author's 
natural  genius  to  render  it  a  delightful  contrast 
to  ordinary  treatises  on  the  subject  —  as,  for 
instance,  to  the  learned  but  somewhat  dreary 
'  Lehrbuch '  we  have  named  with  it  at  the  be- 
ginning of  this  article,  in  which  Dr  Holtzmann 
presents  the  latest  aspects  of  the  school  of 
criticism  whose  failure  Dr  Salmon  exhibits. 
The  book  is  an  expansion  of  lectures  delivered 
in  the  Divinity  School  of  the  University  of 
Dublin,  and  is  marked  consequently  by  the 
directness,  simplicity,  and  liveliness  which  such 
lectures  naturally  assume  in  such  hands.  Dr 
Salmon  has  done  well  to  preserve  the  form  of 
direct  address  in  which  they  were  cast,  altering 
only  the  divisions  necessitated  by  the  length  of 
oral  lectures,  and  supplementing  their  contents. 
As  the  printing  went  on,  he  says,  he  found 
additions  necessary,  partly  in  order  to  take 
notice  of  things  that  had  been  published  since 
the  delivery  of  the  lectures,  and  partly  in  order 
to  include  details  which  want  of  time  had  obliged 
him  to  omit,  but  which  he  was  unwilling  to  pass 
unnoticed  in  his  book.  In  this  way  the  work 
has  become  a  lively  discussion  of  the  historical 
question  of  the  authorship  and  date  of  the  whole 
New  Testament ;  and  a  valuable  lecture  has  been 


126  THE    HISTOEICAL    CRITICISM    OP 

added  on  early  Non-Canonical  books,  including 
the  recently  discovered  *  Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles.'  While  meeting  all  the  requirements 
of  a  scholar,  the  book  is  thus  cast  in  a  form 
which  renders  it  attractive  to  the  ordinary 
reader,  and  it  should  command  the  attention 
of  thoughtful  laymen  as  much  as  of  scholars  and 
divines.  Dr  Salmon,  moreover,  is  richly  en- 
dowed with  the  humour  for  which  his  country- 
men were  renowned  before  recent  politics  had 
clouded  all  Irish  life  with  anxiety  and  bitterness, 
and  his  argument  is  constantly  illustrated  with 
humorous  or  witty  passages.  Such  a  capacity 
has  its  use  in  respect  to  the  substance  as  well  as 
to  the  style  of  such  discussions ;  for  it  may  be 
safely  said  that  many  a  theory,  English  as  well 
as  German,  noticed  in  these  pages,  would  never 
have  been  propounded  if  its  author  had  possessed 
a  due  perception  of  the  ludicrous.  There  is  a 
theory,  for  instance,  respecting  the  Second 
Epistle  of  St  Peter,  propounded  by  Dr  Abbott, 
which  is  exploded  in  these  pages  no  less  by  the 
comic  aspect  in  which  it  is  placed  than  by  the 
criticism  with  which  it  is  exposed.  So,  again,  in 
the  following  amusing  description  of  the  extent 
to  which  German  and  Dutch  scepticism  has  gone, 
it  is  presented  in  a  light  w^hich  alone  is  sufficient 
to  exhibit  its  unsoundness. 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  127 

"Baur,"  says  Dr  Salmon  (p.  379),  "is  far  from 
marking  the  lowest  point  of  negative  criticism.  He 
found  disciples  who  bettered  his  instruction,  until  it 
became  as  hard  for  a  young  professor,  anxious  to  gain 
a  reputation  for  ingenuity,  to  make  a  new  assault  on 
a  New  Testament  book,  as  it  is  now  for  an  Alpine 
Club  man  to  find  in  Switzerland  a  virgin  peak  to 
climb.  The  consequence  has  been  that,  in  Holland, 
Scholten  and  others,  who  had  been  counted  as  leaders 
in  the  school  of  destructive  criticism,  have  been 
obliged  to  come  out  in  the  character  of  Conservatives, 
striving  to  prove,  in  opposition  to  Loman,  that  there 
really  did  live  such  a  person  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
and  that  it  is  not  true  that  every  one  of  the  Epistles 
ascribed  to  Paul  is  a  forgery.  And  certainly  it  is 
not  only  to  the  orthodox  that  the  doctrine  that  we 
have  no  genuine  remains  of  Paul  is  inconvenient ;  it 
must  also  embarrass  those  who  look  for  arguments  to 
prove  an  Epistle  to  be  un-Pauline.  I  leave  these 
last  to  fight  the  battle  with  their  more  advanced 
brethren.  .  .  .  Let  me  say  this,  however,  that  I 
think  young  critics  have  been  seduced  into  false 
tracks  by  the  reputation  which  has  been  wrongly 
gained  by  the  display  of  ingenuity  in  finding  some 
new  reason  for  doubting  received  opinions.  A  man 
is  just  as  bad  a  critic  who  rejects  what  is  genuine  as 
who  receives  what  is  spurious.  '  Be  ye  good  money- 
changers '  is  a  maxim  which  I  have  already  told  you 
was  early  applied  to  this  subject.  But  if  a  bank  clerk 
would  be  unfit  for  his  work  who  allowed  himself  easily 
to  be  imposed  upon  by  forged  paper,  he  would  be 
equally  useless  to  his  employers  if  he  habitually  pro- 
nounced every  note  which  was  tendered  to  him  to  be 
a  forgery,  every  sovereign  to  be  base  metal.      I  quite 


128  THE    HISTORICAL   CEITICISM    OF 

disbelieve  that  the  early  Christian  Church  was  so 
taken  possession  of  by  forgers  that  almost  all  its 
genuine  remains  were  corrupted  or  lost,  while  the 
spurious  formed  the  great  bulk  of  what  was  thought 
worth  preserving.  The  suspicions  that  have  been 
expressed  seem  to  me  to  pass  the  bounds  of  literary 
sanity.  There  are  rogues  in  this  world,  and  you  do 
well  to  guard  against  them ;  but  if  you  allow  your 
mind  to  be  poisoned  by  suspicion,  and  take  every  man 
for  a  rogue,  why,  the  rogues  will  conspire  against  you, 
and  lock  you  up  in  a  lunatic  asylum." 

But  there  are  also  circumstances  which  render 
the  appearance  of  Dr  Salmon's  book  peculiarly 
opportune.  There  are  many  indications  that 
we  have  reached  a  period  when  the  results  of 
modern  criticism  respecting  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures  may  be  fairly  summed  up.  M. 
Eenan's  notorious  work  on  the  '  Origins  of 
Christianity'  implies  in  great  measure  this 
assumption.  It  exhibits  the  conviction  of  a 
keen,  and  in  some  respects  sagacious,  observer, 
that  the  great  critical  debate  which  has  raged 
for  so  long  in  Germany  is  practically  exhausted, 
and  that  the  time  has  come  for  estimating  its 
effect.  Symptoms  of  the  same  feeling  in  Ger- 
many itself  may  be  discerned  in  various  publi- 
cations, of  which  the  object  is  to  present  a  com- 
prehensive view  of  the  present  position  of  critical 
investigations  in  all  branches  of  theology.     Four 


THE   NEW    TESTAMENT.  129 

years  ago  we  noticed  in  these  pages  the  appear- 
ance of  a  valuable  work  of  this  character,  under 
the  title  of  a  'Handbook  of  the  Theological 
Sciences,'  edited  by  Professor  Zockler,  of  Greifs- 
wald,  and  it  has  since  reached  a  second  edition.^ 
In  four  handsome  volumes  it  gives  a  useful  sur- 
vey of  the  whole  field  of  theological  learning 
from  the  point  of  view  of  moderate  orthodoxy. 
This  has  been  followed  by  the  commencement 
of  a  series  of  Theological  Handbooks,  which  are 
apparently  intended  to  afford  at  once  a  more 
complete  and  more  independent  review  of  the 
present  state  of  theological  science.  The  pros- 
pectus states  that  the  series  is  designed  to  serve 
no  party  interests,  and  is  not  a  compilation 
written  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  particular 
party,  but  that  each  Handbook  stands  indepen- 
dently on  its  own  ground.  The  authors,  who 
are  recognised  leaders  in  their  own  departments, 
propose  to  furnish  strictly  scientific  works,  which 
will  give  the  reader  as  "objective"  an  account 
as  possible  of  the  present  position  of  the  various 
branches  of  theology.  Three  volumes  have  al- 
ready appeared,'^ — one  by  Professor  Harnack,  on 
the  'Early  History  of  Christian  Dogmas,'  one 
by  Professor  Weizsacker,  on  the  '  History  of  the 

^  Since,  in  1893,  a  third. 

2  The  series  now  comprises  many  volumes. 

I 


130  THE   HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

Apostolic  Age/  and  the  volume  by  Professor 
Holtzmann,  named  at  the  beginning  of  this 
article.  The  latter  work  was  the  first  to  be 
published ;  and  both  from  the  character  of  the 
series  which  it  opens,  and  from  its  own  nature, 
it  has  a  special  interest  in  respect  to  our  present 
subject. 

Dr  Holtzmann,  as  he  mentions  in  his  preface, 
had  for  twenty-seven  years  lectured  on  the  sub- 
jects included  in  an  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament,  and  he  stands  perhaps  at  the  head 
of  German  scholars  in  this  department  of  theo- 
logical learning.  In  the  useful  annual  '  Keview 
of  Theological  Publications,'  founded  by  Profes- 
sor Ptinjer,  and  afterwards  edited  by  Professor 
Lipsius,  he  contributes  the  account  of  the  liter- 
ature relating  to  the  New  Testament;  and  in 
the  important  *  Theological  Journal,'  edited  by 
Professors  Harnack  and  Schiirer,  he  reviewed 
in  1885  the  first  edition  of  Dr  Salmon's  book. 
In  the  preface  to  his  Introduction  he  describes 
it  as  his  object  to  furnish  a  work  which  would 
aff"ord  a  comprehensive  survey  of  the  present 
state  of  critical  questions,  and  at  the  same  time 
supply  with  sufiicient  completeness  the  subject- 
matter  of  controversy.  His  own  point  of  view, 
which  is  decidedly  rationalistic,  is  not  disguised, 
but  he  has  endeavoured  to  subordinate  the  ex- 


THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  131 

pression  of  it  to  the  purpose  of  giving  a  fair 
statement  of  every  other  view  which  has  any 
scientific  foundation.  A  rationalistic  writer  is 
too  often  disqualified,  by  the  barrenness  of  his 
religious  sympathies,  from  entering  fully  into  the 
views  of  writers  who  are  in  harmony  with  the 
general  course  of  Christian  feeling ;  but  so  far 
as  he  understands  them,  such  a  writer  is  often, 
especially  in  Germany,  free  from  any  bias  in 
reporting  them.  He  looks  on  them  with  cool 
scientific  eyes,  and  is  under  little  inclination  to 
give  a  distorted  account  of  them.  When  a  man 
has  abandoned  old  beliefs,  he  seems  sometimes 
afflicted  with  a  peculiar  incapacity  to  look  at 
them  fairly,  and  consciously  or  unconsciously 
he  gives  them  a  twist  which  may  serve  to  excuse 
him  for  rejecting  them.  This  seems  to  us  a 
special  temptation  of  English  rationalists.  But 
a  writer  like  Dr  Holtzmann  is  fairly  free  from 
any  tendency  of  this  kind.  His  essential  fault, 
in  which  he  is  a  marked  representative  of  his 
school,  is  that  his  judgment  is  cold  and  mechani- 
cal. But  he  reviews  the  whole  course  of  critical 
controversy  with  severe  and  unmoved  temper, 
and  is  perfectly  undisturbed  amidst  the  most 
vital  processes  of  dissection.  He  recognises  that 
we  have  reached  a  time  at  which  it  is  possible 
to  estimate  to  a  considerable  degree  the  issue 


132  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM   OF 

of  the  long  critical  debate ;  and  for  the  purpose 
of  forming  such  an  estimate  his  Introduction  is 
a  valuable  work  of  reference. 

It  will  thus  be  seen,  however,  that  Dr  Sal- 
mon's book  appears  at  a  time  which,  alike 
abroad  and  at  home,  is  felt  to  be  a  favourable 
one  for  a  judicial  review  of  the  great  controversy 
in  question.  The  late  Bishop  of  Durham,  in 
the  preface  to  his  great  work  on  the  Ignatian 
Epistles,  expressed  the  belief  that  the  destructive 
criticism  of  the  last  half-century  is  fast  spending 
its  force.  To  some  extent,  as  will  be  seen  in  the 
sequel,  Dr  Salmon  may  be  thought  to  be  slaying 
the  slain  in  his  exposure  of  such  theories  as  that 
of  Baur.  But  it  may  be  as  well  that  such  a 
coup  de  grdce  should  have  been  delayed  until 
every  plea  that  could  be  urged  in  support  of 
the  hypothesis  had  practically  been  exhausted. 
English  divines  have  been  sometimes  reproached 
during  the  last  half- century  with  paying  insuffi- 
cient attention  to  the  attacks  made  by  critical 
science  upon  traditional  beliefs  ;  and  they  were 
perhaps  somewhat  tardy  in  this  respect.  When, 
indeed,  full  notice  was  taken  of  such  contro- 
versies, as  in  the  '  Speaker  s  Commentary,'  it 
received  very  inadequate  attention  ;  and  even 
Dr  Holtzmann,  in  his  comjDrehensive  survey  of 
the  literature  of  his  subject,  pays  no  regard  to 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  133 

the  many  important  discussions  contained  in  the 
Introductions  to  the  New  Testament  Books  in 
that  Commentary.  But  the  position  assumed  by 
English  divines  was  very  intelligible  and  excus- 
able. They  were  like  men  who  felt  themselves 
in  possession  of  an  impregnable  fortress,  in  the 
walls  of  which  a  disorganised  host  were  striv- 
ing, amidst  the  greatest  confusion,  to  effect  a 
practicable  breach.  It  was  not  worth  while, 
as  long  as  partial  and  inconsistent  assaults  were 
being  delivered,  now  on  one  side  and  now  on  the 
other,  to  bring  all  the  forces  of  learning  to  bear 
on  each  attempt,  especially  as  the  attack  of  one 
set  of  assailants  was  sure  to  be  neutralised  by  a 
counter-movement  on  the  part  of  some  rivals  or 
other.  But  the  attack,  as  Bishop  Lightfoot  says, 
has  now  in  great  part  spent  its  force,  and  the 
real  value  of  each  ambitious  enterprise  can  be 
judged  of.  It  is  a  great  advantage  that  at  such 
a  time  a  book  should  be  placed  in  the  hands 
of  English  readers  which  pronounces  a  fair,  com- 
prehensive, and  solid  judgment  upon  the  whole 
controversy.  The  publication,  almost  simulta- 
neously, of  Dr  Tloltzmann's  book,  enables  us  to 
check  at  each  point  the  statements  of  fact  and 
opinion  which  Dr  Salmon  advances,  and  thus 
secures  us  against  any  such  danger  of  prejudice 
as  even  the  most  impartial  writer  may  not  al- 


134  THE   HISTORICAL   CRITICISM    OF 

ways  be  able  to  escape.  The  result  appears  to  us 
to  afford  a  most  remarkable  confirmation  of  the 
truth  of  the  views  substantially  held  in  the 
Church  from  the  commencement,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  suggest  most  instructive  considera- 
tions respecting  other  controversies  still  pending. 
It  may,  perhaps,  be  worth  observing  that  Dr 
Holtzmann  has  borne  conspicuous,  though  reluc- 
tant, testimony  to  the  full  acquaintance  which 
Dr  Salmon  commands  with  the  course  of  German 
criticism.  In  the  review  in  '  Schiirer's  Journal,' 
to  which  we  have  referred,  he  expresses  a  not 
unnatural  vexation  at  Dr  Salmon's  merciless, 
though  by  no  means  unkind,  exposure  of  some 
leading  schools  of  German  criticism ;  but  in 
complaining  of  what  he  describes  as  its  mis- 
representations, he  has  to  confess  that  it  is  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  views  expressed  in 
the  most  widely  read  journals  and  reviews  in 
Germany  itself. 

"  It  is,"  he  says,  "  some  excuse  for  a  foreigner  who 
entertains  his  readers  with  such  frivolous  wit  that  his 
views  are  evidently  obtained  in  very  limited  degree 
from  his  own  study  of  German  theology,  and  that  for 
the  rest  he  relies  upon  the  judgments  which  are  at 
present  current  and  famihar  in  Germany  itself.  The 
journals  and  theological  papers  which  are  most  read 
among  us  speak  much  the  same  language  as  he  does  ; 
and,  in  fact,  in  strong  contrast  to  the  picture  of  Ger- 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  135 

man  theology  drawn  by  our  author,  they  offer  abundant 
examples  that  there  is  scarcely  any  contention  of  criti- 
cism, whether  well-founded  or  not,  which  has  not  af- 
forded some  partisan  of  the  prevalent  Church  influences 
an  occasion  to  spring  into  the  saddle  as  the  champion 
of  traditional  prejudice."  ■'• 

This  passage  is  interesting,  in  the  testimony  it 
affords  of  the  strong  reaction  which  prevails  in 
Germany  itself  against  the  destructive  school  of 
criticism — a  reaction  which  is  full  of  encourage- 
ment for  the  future  of  religious  thought  and  life, 
alike  in  that  important  country  and  elsewhere. 
But  with  respect  to  the  insinuation  against  Dr 
Salmon,  that  his  view  of  the  criticism  he  exposes 
is  but  partially  derived  from  direct  study  of  its 
sources,  it  seems  an  unfortunate  argument  that  Dr 
Salmon's  account  of  it  is  in  entire  harmony  with 
that  of  the  most  widely  read  theological  papers 
in  Germany  itself  The  fact  is  that  Dr  Salmon 
has  taken  particular  pains  throughout  his  work 
to  deal  directly  and  at  first  hand  with  all  the 
German  authors  whom  he  quotes,  and  useful  in- 
formation respecting  each  of  them  is  added  in 
footnotes.  It  is  an  essential  characteristic  of 
his  work  that  it  is  in  no  respect  a  compilation. 
No  authority,  ancient  or  modern,  is  employed 
without  careful  sifting,  and  the  results  presented 

1  Theologische  Literaturzeitung,  August  22,  1885,  p.  399. 


136  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

are  always  independent  and  original,  and  some- 
times novel.  Dr  Holtzmann  himself,  however, 
is  obliged  to  part  from  Dr  Salmon  with  some 
genial  acknowledgments  ;  and  if  there  is  some- 
thing amusing  in  the  condescension  with  which 
he  confesses  that  he — even  he — has  learnt  some- 
thing from  a  professor  at  Dublin,  we  have  chiefly 
to  regret  that  what  he  has  failed  to  learn  is  the 
secret  of  the  liveliness  and  humour  which  he 
cannot  help  enjoying. 

"And  yet,"  he  says  (p.  400  of  the  Review),  "it  is 
no  uninteresting  book  which  the  Dublin  theologian 
offers  us.  In  spite  of  its  lack  of  compactness  and 
division  of  subject-matter,  it  is  enlivened  by  a  certain 
freshness  of  conception,  by  humour  and  wit,  and  by  a 
wealth  of  illustration  which  a  wide  historical  know- 
ledge and  great  acquaintance  with  English  and  French 
literature  place  at  the  writer's  command.  Even  the 
special  theological  learning  of  the  author,  in  spite  of 
the  limits  already  indicated  to  his  judgment,  is  in  no 
way  to  be  lightly  estimated.  On  not  a  few  points  I 
am  indebted  to  the  author  for  additions  to  my  know- 
ledge, and  that  not  merely  in  respect  to  subjects  which, 
from  his  Dublin  point  of  view,  are  of  more  concern  to 
him,  and  more  accessible  to  him,  than  to  myself." 

In  the  twelfth  number  of  the  same  Eeview  for 
the  current  year,  in  an  article  on  Dr  Westcott's 
*  Commentary  on  St  John's  Epistles,'  the  editor, 
Dr  Harnack,  said  that  "  among  German  com- 
mentaries on  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament 


THE   NEW    TESTAMENT.  137 

we  possess  few  which,  for  richness  of  material, 
penetrating  acumen,  and  independence  of  judg- 
ment, can  be  compared  with  this  commentary  of 
Westcott's.  The  exegetical  works  of  this  scholar 
and  of  Lightfoot  may  serve  us  for  a  model." 
When  English  theological  scholarship  commands 
this  recognition  in  the  same  columns  as  Dr 
Holtzmann's  article,  there  is  something  almost 
comical  in  his  surprise  at  Dr  Salmon's  learning. 
But  we  are  sure  that  Dr  Salmon  will  cheerfully 
accept  the  condescension,  for  the  sake  of  the 
substantial  testimony  which  it  implies  to  the 
value  of  his  book. 

We  are  quite  content,  however,  for  our  present 
purpose,  to  accept  Dr  Holtzmann's  invitation,  in 
the  same  article,  to  follow  him  in  a  review  of 
the  course  of  German  criticism,  instead  of  judg- 
ing it  simply  in  the  light  of  the  English  method 
as  represented  by  Dr  Salmon's  book.  This 
review  occupies  the  central  part  of  Dr  Holtz- 
mann's '  Einleitung,'  and  is  peculiarly  instruc- 
tive. The  title  of  the  chapter  in  question  is 
"  The  Canon  and  Protestantism,"  and  it  is  char- 
acteristic of  his  whole  point  of  view,  that  the 
Canon  appears  to  present  itself  to  him  as  a  kind 
of  bugbear  which  it  is  the  first  duty  of  a  sound 
critic  to  exorcise.  There  is  indeed  some  truth 
in  his  contention,  that  there  was  a  signal  incon- 


138  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

sistency  in  the  manner  in  which  some  schools  of 
Protestant  theology,  while  renouncing  the  tra- 
ditional authority  of  the  Koman  Church,  rested 
their  case  on  another  tradition,  that  of  the 
Canon,  which  they  accepted  almost  blindfold. 
It  was  peculiarly  the  temptation  of  those  Pro- 
testant Churches  which  were  forced  adrift  from 
the  historical  continuity  of  Church  order  and 
life.  Their  break  with  the  past  in  external 
organisation  and  succession  was  so  marked  that 
they  were  led  to  throw  exaggerated  emphasis  on 
the  independent  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  In 
this  country,  where  the  sense  of  historic  con- 
tinuity was  never  broken,  such  exaggeration  of 
the  place  held  by  the  Canon  has  been  but  partial, 
and  our  best  divines  have  maintained  a  position 
more  in  harmony  with  that  of  the  early  Fathers, 
and  in  keeping  with  the  statement  of  our  article, 
that  the  Church  is  "a  witness  and  a  keeper  of 
Holy  Writ."  Such  a  position  justifies  an  inquiry 
at  any  moment  into  the  nature  of  the  witness 
borne  by  the  Church  from  the  earliest  times, 
and  practically  rests  the  authority  of  the  Canon 
upon  the  broad  ground  of  historic  fact.  At  the 
background  of  Professor  Holtzmann's  whole  dis- 
cussion there  seems  a  notion  that  this  simple 
view  of  the  case  is  almost  beyond  the  conception 
of  his  antagonists.     He  seems  to  imagine  that 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  139 

he  has  to  contend  with  people  who  regard  the 
recognised  Canon  as  determined  for  them  once 
for  all  by  some  unknown  dogmatic  authority,  so 
that  it  is  their  business  henceforth  never  to  look 
behind  it,  but  simply  to  invent  arguments,  good 
or  bad,  in  favour  of  its  retention. 

The  presence  of  such  a  spectre  in  the  mind  of 
a  theological  scholar  like  Professor  Holtzmann 
may  go  far  to  explain  some  of  the  extravagances 
of  German  speculation.  To  get  rid  of  this  arti- 
ficial authority,  German  scholars  have  rushed  to 
another  extreme,  and  have  found  a  delight  in 
trying  how  completely  they  could  emancipate 
themselves  from  dogmatic  fetters.  The  progress 
of  human  thought  exhibits  a  curious  incapacity 
for  straightforward  progression.  A  straight  line 
is  said  not  to  exist  in  nature,  and  it  certainly 
does  not  exist  in  the  history  of  thought.  Men 
never  advance  from  one  centre  of  truth  to  its 
neighbour  by  the  direct  path,  but  by  a  series  of 
zigzags,  in  which  they  swerve  alternately  from 
the  right  to  the  left.  The  ascent,  we  must 
suppose,  is  too  difficult,  or  the  distant  truth 
too  dazzling ;  but  whatever  the  reason,  this 
incapacity  for  direct  progression  is  almost  uni- 
versal. Professor  Holtzmann's  discussion  leaves 
the  impression  that  his  chief  impulse  is  one 
of  repulsion  from  the   old  dogmatic  theory  he 


140  THE   HISTOEICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

denounces,  and  that  the  criticism  in  which  he 
seeks  a  refuge  is  swinging  wildly  right  and  left, 
in  search  of  the  balance  in  which  it  will  ulti- 
mately rest.  Perverse  as  have  been  some  of 
the  aberrations  of  this  criticism,  we  must  own 
to  a  partial  sympathy  with  its  efforts.  The 
German  critics  sometimes  seem  to  us  like  bold 
riders  in  a  hunting-field,  repelled  by  the  dicta- 
tion of  an  arbitrary  huntsman  that  they  must 
all  ride  in  one  direction,  if  they  are  to  find  the 
fox.  He  may  be  quite  right,  but  he  is  irritat- 
ing in  his  manner,  and  they  are  provoked  into 
jumping  impossible  fences  all  round  the  field,  in 
order  to  prove  that  the  fox  has  gone  elsewhere. 
They  tumble  into  sad  ditches,  and  find  out  that 
the  huntsman  was  right  after  all.  But  the 
result  is  at  all  events  to  make  it  quite  certain 
that  the  fox  did  go  off  in  the  direction  that  the 
huntsman  maintained ;  and  as  to  the  reckless 
riders,  we  must  hope  "  that  heaven  may  yet 
have  more  mercy  than  man  on  such  a  bold 
rider's  soul." 

However,  though  Dr  Holtzmann  need  not 
make  quite  so  much  of  the  achievement,  it 
was  a  perfectly  legitimate  and  even  necessary 
step  that  when,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  the 
struggle  for  existence  against  the  Koman  Church 
was  over,  and  the  materials  for  learned  investi- 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  141 

gation  became  fully  accessible,  German  critics, 
of  whom  perhaps  Semler,  who  died  in  1791,  is 
the  pioneer,  should  commence  to  scrutinise  more 
closely  the  grounds  on  which  the  sacred  books 
of  our  Canon  held  their  authoritative  position. 
They  were  as  much  open  to  free  inquiry  as  the 
Papal  authority  to  which  our  forefathers  had 
submitted,  and  they  had  to  stand  the  test  of 
reason  and  history  if  they  were  to  maintain 
their  claims.  There  was,  indeed,  one  essential 
point  on  which  German  criticism  from  the  first 
went  astray.  Dr  Holtzmann  quotes  as  a  char- 
acteristic mark  of  advance  the  saying  of  Eich- 
horn,  at  the  beginning  of  this  century,  that 
the  "  writings  of  the  New  Testament  must  be 
read  in  a  human  way  and  examined  in  a  human 
way."  This  may  be  understood  in  a  sound 
meaning,  but  Dr  Holtzmann  immediately  em- 
phasises the  error  to  which  it  was  exposed  when 
he  adds,  in  his  own  name,  that  "  their  origin 
and  their  collection  were  alike  a  human  process." 
This  is  to  beg  the  question  in  the  most  ex- 
travagant manner.  Eichhorn  says  that  we  must 
examine  the  Scriptures  by  human  faculties  and 
by  human  methods.  It  certainly  does  not 
follow,  as  Dr  Holtzmann  assumes,  that  we  shall 
find  none  but  human  forces  at  work.  The 
verdict   of  reason  may   be,   that    it   has    come 


142  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

into  contact  with  sometliing  beyond  and  above 
reason ;  but  this  is  a  possibility  which  it  has 
been  the  grand  error  of  German  criticism  to 
ignore.  Dr  Salmon  has  some  excellent  remarks 
on  this  point  in  his  opening  chapter.  The 
question  of  inspiration  is  of  course  the  question 
of  miracle,  and  the  impossibility  of  miracle 
became  the  first  principle  of  the  leading  schools 
of  German  criticism. 

"  This  principle,"  says  Dr  Salmon  (p.  8) — "  namely, 
the  absolute  impossibility  of  miracle — is  the  basis  of 
the  investigations  of  the  school,  some  of  whose  results 
must  be  examined  in  this  course  of  lectures.  Two  of 
its  leading  writers,  Strauss  and  Eenan,  in  their  pre- 
faces, make  the  absolute  rejection  of  the  supernatural 
the  foundation  of  their  whole  structure.  Eenan  de- 
clares that  he  will  accept  a  miracle  as  proved  only  if 
it  is  found  that  it  will  succeed  on  repetition,  forgetting 
that  in  this  case  it  would  not  be  a  miracle  at  all,  but 
a  newly  discovered  natural  law.  Strauss  equally,  in 
his  preface,  declares  it  to  be  his  fundamental  principle 
that  there  was  nothing  supernatural  in  the  person  or 
work  of  Jesus.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  about  a 
book  which  made  some  sensation  on  its  publication  a* 
few  years  ago,  '  Supernatural  Eeligion.'  The  extreme 
captiousness  of  its  criticism  found  no  approval  from 
respectable  foreign  reviewers,  however  little  they  might 
be  entitled  to  be  classed  as  believers  in  Eevelation. 
Dates  were  assigned  in  it  to  some  of  our  J^ew  Testa- 
ment books  so  late  as  to  shock  any  one  who  makes 
an   attempt   fairly   to  judge   of   evidence.    •  And  the 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  143 

reason  is,  that  the  author  starts  with  the  denial  of  the 
supernatural  as  his  fixed  principle.  If  that  principle 
be,  in  his  eyes,  once  threatened,  all  ordinary  laws  of 
probability  must  give  way.  It  is  necessary  at  the 
outset  to  call  your  attention  to  this  fundamental 
principle  of  our  opponents,  because  it  explains  their 
seeming  want  of  candour ;  why  it  is  that  they  are  so 
unreasonably  rigorous  in  their  demands  of  proof  of 
the  authenticity  of  our  books ;  why  they  meet  with 
evasions  proofs  that  seem  to  be  demonstrative.  It  is 
because,  to  their  minds,  any  solution  of  a  difficulty  is 
more  probable  than  one  which  would  concede  that  a 
miracle  had  really  occurred." 

It  is  the  same  unfounded  assumption,  in 
another  aspect,  which  is  involved  in  Dr  Holtz- 
mann's  comment  on  Eichhorn's  maxim,  and  is 
at  the  root  of  the  mistaken  criticism  of  which 
he  is  the  present  representative.  It  is  assumed 
that  every  phenomenon  in  the  New  Testament 
must  be  explained  on  purely  human  principles, 
and  without  reference  to  the  possibility  of  the 
minds  of  the  sacred  writers  having  been  super- 
naturally  influenced.  This  principle,  however, 
did  not  receive  its  full  development  until  the 
appearance  of  Strauss's  'Life  of  Jesus'  in  1835. 
De  Wette,  who  died  in  1849,  affords,  says  Dr 
Holtzmann,  "a  speaking  mirror  of  the  young 
and  unsettled  criticism  of  the  period  immediately 
before  and  after  1840,"  and  "he  shows,  in  his 
own  example,  how,  with  full  critical  tendency, 


144  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

it  was  possible  in  tlie  main  to  arrive  at  results 
which  appear  readily  reconcilable  with  traditional 
conceptions  "  (p.  182).  In  fact,  like  some  of  the 
Fathers  in  the  early  Church,  De  Wette  enter- 
tained doubts  respecting  the  authenticity  of 
certain  books  in  the  Canon  ;  but  on  this  subject, 
in  Dr  Holtzmann's  opinion,  he  represents  no 
general  revolt  against  traditional  views.  The 
real  commencement  of  the  kind  of  criticism 
which  occasioned  the  chief  controversies  of  the 
last  half-century  is  regarded  by  Dr  Holtzmann 
as  marked  by  the  publication  of  Strauss's  '  Life 
of  Jesus.'  This  work,  with  its  portentous  de- 
sign of  revolutionising  the  whole  conception  of 
Christianity,  indicates  the  growing  feeling  of 
rationalistic  thought  that  it  could  do  nothing  by 
merely  nibbling,  as  it  were,  at  particular  portions 
of  the  Canon  or  of  Christian  traditions.  Those 
traditions  were  felt  to  form  too  strong  and  com- 
pact a  body  of  organised  thought  and  life  to  be 
seriously  affected  by  a  few  doubts  on  points  of 
detail.  If  the  sacred  documents  were  trust- 
worthy on  the  whole,  it  was  felt,  especially 
by  Strauss,  that  the  characteristic  elements  of 
Christian  belief,  and  particularly  the  reality  of 
miracles,  could  not  be  seriously  contested.  But, 
as  Dr  Salmon  says,  the  reality  of  such  beliefs 
was  assumed  to  be  impossible,  and  the  rational- 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  145 

istic  genius  of  the  day,  stimulated  by  the  current 
philosophy,  was  brooding  over  the  problem  of 
finding  some  natural  explanation  of  the  whole 
phenomenon  of  the  New  Testament  literature. 
Strauss's  attempt  commanded  attention,  and 
exerted  considerable  fascination  by  its  audacity ; 
but  it  was  felt,  as  Dr  Holtzmann  says,  even  by 
those  who  were  in  sympathy  with  its  object, 
that  it  dealt  too  recklessly  with  the  broad  and 
unquestionable  evidence  of  fact,  afforded  not 
merely  by  the  Gospels,  but  by  other  books  of 
the  New  Testament. 

But  while  rationalistic  thought  was  in  the 
ferment  thus  created,  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur 
was  elaborating  a  theory  which,  while  answering 
the  main  purposes  of  that  of  Strauss,  appeared 
to  possess  the  documentary  basis  in  which  the 
latter  had  been  deficient ;  and  this  theory  took 
by  storm  the  public  to  which  it  appealed.  A 
review  of  it  is  made  the  starting-poiut  of  Dr 
Salmon's  book,  and  the  position  which  he  gives 
it  is  in  harmony  with  that  assigned  to  it  by  Dr 
Holtzmann.  Their  accounts  of  it  are  substan- 
tially the  same,  but  to  avoid  all  appearance  of 
partiality  we  will  take  Dr  Holtzmann's.  The 
theory  marks,  for  several  reasons,  a  memorable 
episode  in  the  history  of  criticism  ;  and  it  is  only 
necessary  to  apprehend  the  facts  which  relate  to 

K 


146  THE    HISTOEICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

it,  as  they  are  stated  by  one  who  is  an  admirer, 
and  in  great  degree  the  disciple,  of  its  founder, 
in  order  to  appreciate  the  vivid  illustration  it. 
affords  of  the  points  on  which  we  are  chiefly 
concerned  to  dwell.  The  following  is  Dr  Holtz- 
mann's  account  of  the  origin  of  this  famous 
theory;  and  we  must  beg  the  reader  to  bear 
in  mind  that  it  is  an  account  given,  not  by  a 
hostile  critic,  but  by  an  ardent  admirer : — 

"  The  founder  of  the  Tubingen  school,  F.  C.  Baur 
(who  died  in  1860),  had  taken  his  point  of  departure 
not  so  much,  like  Strauss,  from  Philosophy,  as  from 
History ;  and  before  Strauss  had  entered  on  the  criti- 
cism of  the  Gospels,  Baur  had  commenced  the  criticism 
of  the  New  Testament  from  the  other  central  point, 
examining  in  the  Epistles  of  St  Paul  the  most  direct 
and  ancient  records  of  Christianity.  He  had  been  led 
to  them  in  the  course  of  his  study  of  Gnosticism, 
through  his  researches  into  the  Homilies  ascribed,  to 
the  Eoman  Clement.  In  these  Homilies  he  thought 
he  discovered  an  abrupt  opposition  between  Jewish 
and  Pauline  Christianity,  in  respect  to  which  it  was 
not  easy  to  see  how  it  could  have  been  less  in  the 
preceding  apostolic  age.  He  investigated,  accordingly, 
with  more  exactness  the  relation  of  St  Paul  to  the 
elder  apostles,  and  found  that  the  conception  generally 
entertained  of  the  apostolic  age  was  a  false  one.  It 
could  in  no  way  have  been  that  golden  age  of  undis- 
turbed harmony  which  it  was  generally  represented. 
On  the  contrary,  the  utterances  of  Paul  himself  afforded 
clear  proof  of  deep  oppositions,  and  of  vital  struggles 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  147 

which  that  apostle  had  to  maintain  with  the  Jewish 
Christian  party,  and  even  with  the  older  apostles. 
There  was  thus  gained,  at  all  events,  a  more  concrete 
view  of  the  import  of  the  first  vital  controversy  of 
Christianity,  of  its  relation  to  Judaism,  and  of  the 
modifications  which  it  experienced  in  its  passage  to  a 
heathen  soil." 

A  stranger  method  of  gaining  an  insight  into 
the  history  of  early  Christianity  could  hardly 
be  conceived.  It  will  be  observed  that  Baur's 
theory  was  not  suggested  to  him  by  the  study 
of  the  New  Testament  writings  themselves — not 
even  by  those  four  Epistles  of  St  Paul  which  he 
afterwards  selected  as  the  documentary  basis  of 
his  system.  It  was  suggested  to  him  by  the 
Clementine  Homilies.  These  Homilies,  as  Dr 
Salmon  explains,  are  not  older  than  the  very 
end  of  the  second  century.  They  are  a  kind 
of  Christian  romance,  of  which  Clement  of  Kome 
is  made  the  narrator.  They  are  generally  be- 
lieved to  have  originated  among  a  later  sect  of 
Ebionites,  or  Jewish  Christian  heretics,  and  they 
form  a  sort  of  controversial  novel,  in  which  St 
Peter  is  represented  as  the  Apostle  of  the  Centiles 
as  well  as  of  the  Jews,  and  St  Paul  is  ignored,  or 
even  attacked,  under  the  disguise  of  Simon  Magus. 
Baur  is  struck,  in  this  heretical  romance,  with 
the  bitter  feeling  against  St  Paul  entertained 
by   the   sect   in   which    it    arose ;    and,    in   Dr 


148  THE   HISTORICAL   CRITICISM   OF 

Holtzmann's  words,  "  does  not  see  how  this 
feeling  could  have  been  less  in  the  apostolic 
age."  That  is  to  say,  he  does  not  see  any 
improbability  in  reading  back  into  the  main 
current  of  apostolic  thought  the  feelings  which 
he  finds  cherished,  about  a  hundred  and  fifty 
years  later,  in  an  obscure  corner  of  the  Christian 
world.  The  views  and  prejudices  of  Ebionite 
writers  towards  the  end  of  the  second  century 
must,  he  assumes,  have  been  those  which  ani- 
mated apostles  in  the  middle  of  the  first.  The 
theory  is  purely  arbitrary.  Not  only  was  it  not 
suggested  by  the  Epistles  of  St  Paul,  but  it  had 
to  be  forcibly  read  into  them.  Accordingly, 
those  which  will  not  bear  the  strain  are  sum- 
marily rejected  as  not  genuine,  and  the  whole 
New  Testament  is  judged  by  a  standard  taken 
from  a  confessedly  fanciful,  as  well  as  heretical, 
novel  of  a  late  date.  The  natural  consequence 
is  well  described  by  Dr  Salmon  as  follows  (p. 
20):— 

"  In  order  to  save  his  theory  from  destruction,  Baur 
has  been  obliged  to  make  a  tolerably  clean  sweep  of 
the  documents.  In  four  of  Paul's  Epistles  some  symp- 
toms may  be  found  which  can  be  interpreted  as 
exhibiting  feelings  of  jealousy  or  soreness  towards  the 
elder  apostles.  But  there  is  nothing  of  the  kind  in  the 
other  nine.  The  genuineness  of  these,  therefore,  must 
be  denied.     The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  represent  Paul 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  149 

as  on  most  friendly  terms  with  Peter  and  James,  and 
these  apostles  as  taking  his  side  in  the  controversy  as 
to  imposing  Judaism  on  the  Gentiles.  The  Acts, 
therefore,  cannot  be  true  history.  Not  only  the  dis- 
courses ascribed  to  Peter  in  the  Acts,  but  the  first 
Epistle,  which  the  ancient  Church  unanimously  accepted 
as  Peter's,  is  thoroughly  Pauline  in  doctrine.  We 
must  therefore  disregard  ancient  testimony,  and  reject 
the  Epistle.  The  earliest  uninspired  Christian  docu- 
ment, the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Eome,  confessedly 
belongs  to  the  conciliatory  school,  Peter  and  Paul 
being  placed  in  it  on  equal  terms  of  reverence  and 
honour.  It,  too,  must  be  discarded.  So,  in  like 
manner,  go  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  the 
former  of  whom  writes  to  the  Eomans,  '  I  do  not  pre- 
tend to  command  you,  like  Peter  or  Paul.' " 

It  is  to  be  further  borne  in  mind,  however, 
that  Baur  prided  himself  on  what  he  described 
as  the  *'  positive  "  character  of  this  criticism,  as 
distinguished  from  such  negative  criticism  as 
that  of  De  Wette.  The  criticism  of  his  prede- 
cessors had,  as  it  were,  but  picked  holes  in  the 
old  edifice  of  early  Church  history,  leaving  the 
main  outlines  of  the  old  structure  still  standing. 
But  Baur  aspired  to  nothing  less  than  a  recon- 
struction of  the  whole  building.  He  maintained 
that  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  latter  part  of 
the  second  century,  instead  of  having  grown  up 
regularly  on  the  lines  traced  out  for  it  by  the 
common  teaching  of  the  apostles,  was  the  result 


150  THE   HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

of  a  compromise  between  two  radically  antagon- 
istic parties — those  of  Judaism  and  Paulinism, 
or  what  Dr  Holtzmann  distinguishes  as  "  a  par- 
ticularistic and  universalistic  conception  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  one  legal,  the  other  free."  The 
Canonical  and  non-Canonical  literature  of  early 
Christianity  is  all  interpreted  as  consisting  of 
memorials  of  this  long  struggle,  which  is  supposed 
to  have  lasted  till  towards  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  and  as  marking  the  gradual  stages  of  ap- 
proach to  an  agreement.  For  the  purpose  of  pro- 
moting a  compromise,  epistles  and  historical  books 
were  written  which  cast  over  Apostolic  history  a 
colour  of  harmony  which  did  not  really  exist,  and 
the  names  of  Apostles  and  their  companions  were 
without  scruple  attached  to  such  productions. 
This  period  of  literary  development  was  regarded 
as  falling  into  three  divisions.  The  first  ex- 
tended to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  the 
year  70,  and  included  the  four  Epistles  of  St 
Paul  which  alone  Baur  reckoned  as  genuine, 
with  the  Apocalypse  of  St  John.  In  these  the 
original  Ebionitic  Christianity  and  Paulinism 
confronted  each  other  in  their  full  extent.  The 
second  period  extends  over  the  next  seventy 
years,  or  until  about  140  a.d.  ;  and  includes  the 
origin  of  the  two  great  Gospels  of  St  Matthew 
and  St  Luke,   which   refer  to  the   Jewish  war 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  151 

under  Hadrian,  or  to  the  5^ears  132-135  a.d.  To 
the  same  period  belong  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
and  St  Mark-,  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
the  supposed  pseudo-Pauline  Epistles,  and  the 
Catholic  Epistles.  The  characteristic  of  this 
period  was  said  to  be  that  the  first  step  was 
taken  on  both  sides  tow^ards  softening  the  orig- 
inal antagonism,  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians 
and  Colossians  being  invented  for  this  purpose 
on  the  side  of  the  Pauline  party.  Finally,  in 
the  third  period,  after  140,  the  conflicting 
Ebionitic  and  Gnostic  extremes  were  rejected 
by  the  general  feeling  of  the  Church,  and  a 
final  settlement  of  the  controversy  was  arrived 
at,  which  is  marked  in  practice  at  Kome  by  the 
association  of  "  Peter  and  Paul "  as  joint  founders 
of  that  Church,  and  in  thought  by  the  fourth 
Gospel.  To  this  last  period,  accordingly,  are 
assigned  the  writings  which  conclude  the  Canon 
— the  Pastoral  Epistles,  and  the  Gospel  and 
Epistles  of  St  John. 

It  might  naturally  be  asked.  What  is  the  use 
of  recalling  so  preposterous  a  theory,  especially 
when,  as  we  shall  see,  it  is  practically  abandoned 
even  by  those  who,  like  Dr  Holtzmann,  look  up 
to  its  author  with  admiration,  and  regard  them- 
selves as  his  successors  ?  It  possesses,  however, 
one  aspect  of  great  practical  interest  and  impor- 


152  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

tance,  upon  whicli  it  is  our  main  purpose  at 
present  to  dwell.  This  theory  of  Baur — as  great 
a  romance  as  the  Clementine  Homilies  on  which 
it  is  built — does  not  stand  by  itself,  like  the 
theory  of  Strauss,  as  the  dream  of  a  single  mind, 
which  passed  away  with  its  author.  It  became 
the  foundation  of  an  important  school  of  Ger- 
man learning  which  to  some  extent  still  exists ; 
and  Baur  is  still  looked  up  to  as  a  great  master 
by  a  band  of  able  men  who  regard  themselves 
as  his  followers,  though  they  have  been  obliged, 
by  the  force  of  evidence,  to  relinquish  his  main 
positions.  The  theory  seized  a  large  part  of  the 
German  critical  and  theological  world  by  storm, 
and  a  band  of  impetuous  critics  attached  them- 
selves to  their  Meister,  and  worked  out  his 
theory  into  the  minutest  and  most  extravagant 
details.  Dr  Salmon  gives  one  of  the  strangest 
of  these  fantastic  discoveries,  which  we  observe 
that  even  Dr  Holtzmann  still  mentions  with 
respect : — 

"  St  Matthew  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  makes 
our  Lord  speak  of  men  who  say  '  Lord,  Lord/  and  who 
will,  at  the  last  day,  appeal  ...  to  their  doing  of 
miracles  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  but  who  will  be  re- 
jected by  Him  as  doers  of  lawlessness  (avojULa),  whom 
He  had  never  known.  It  may  surprise  you  to  hear 
that  this  sentence  was  coined  by  the  Jewish- Christian 
author  of  the  record  as  a  protest  against  the  opposition 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  .153 

to  the  law  made  by  Paul  and  his  followers.  And  it 
may  surprise  you  more  to  hear  that  St  Luke  (xiii.  26) 
is  highly  complimented  for  the  skill  with  which  he 
turns  this  Jewish  anti-Pauline  saying  into  one  of  a 
Pauline  anti- Jewish  character.  He  substitutes  the 
word  adiKia,  '  injustice/  for  avojuia,  '  lawlessness/  and 
he  directs  the  saying  against  the  Jews,  who  will  one 
day  appeal  to  having  eaten  and  drunk  in  the  presence 
of  Jesus,  and  to  His  having  taught  in  their  streets, 
but,  notwithstanding,  shall  be  told  by  Him  to  depart 
as  doers,  not  of  avojuia,  but  of  iniquity,  and  shall  break 
forth  into  loud  weeping  when  they  see  people  coming 
from  the  east  and  west,  and  north  and  south,  and  sit- 
ting down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  while 
themselves  are  shut  out/' 

One  would  think  that  people  must  have  gone 
crazy  over  a  theory  before  they  could  magnify 
such  a  microscopic  variation  into  a  serious  illus- 
tration and  support  of  their  views. 

But  notwithstanding  the  original  wildness  of 
the  theory,  and  the  extravagance  of  some  of  its 
supporters,  it  still  maintained  such  a  place  in  Ger- 
man thought  as  to  be  treated  by  Dr  Holtzmann 
as  the  starting-point  of  subsequent  criticism,  to 
which  all  other  schools  are  to  be  referred.  He  pro- 
ceeds, in  detailing  the  further  course  of  criticism 
down  to  the  present  day,  to  describe  it  as  a  series 
of  stages  in  the  development  of  Baur's  theory, 
or  in  opposition  to  it.  Practically,  however,  his 
narrative  is  simply  a  record  of  the  manner  in 


154  THE   HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

which  the  main  points  of  the  theory  were  found, 
one  by  one,  to  be  untenable.  Dr  Hilgenfeld,  for 
instance,  who  is  described  as  remaining  true  to 
the  critical  views  of  the  Tubingen  school  in  the 
wider  sense,  and  who  is  one  of  its  ablest  repre- 
sentatives, is  nevertheless  described  as  recognis- 
ing "  that  original  Christianity  did  not  consist  of 
pure  Ebionism,  and  that  in  the  relation  of  Paul 
to  the  original  apostles  their  common  ground 
must  not  be  overlooked  ;  while  to  the  four  Epis- 
tles acknowledged  by  Baur  three  must  be  added 
as  genuine,  Thessalonians  L,  Philippians,  and 
Philemon."  But  passing  to  the  opponents  of  the 
school,  we  are  introduced  first  to  the  "  imagina- 
tive opposition,"  connected  with  the  great  name 
of  Neander,  which  based  its  antagonism  on  Chris- 
tian conviction  and  feeling,  and  dwelt  on  the 
immense  gulf  which  separates  the  sacred  writings 
of  the  Canon  from  the  uninspired  literature  with 
which  Baur's  theory  would  class  so  many  of 
them.  Then  follows  the  "  dogmatic  opposition," 
of  which  Von  Hofmann  in  the  past,  and  Dr 
Bernhard  Weiss  in  the  present,  are  taken  as 
representatives,  and  which  starts  from  the  as- 
sumption that  the  development  of  the  Church 
must  have  been  due,  not  to  the  action  and 
reaction  of  contraries,  but  to  the  unfolding  of 
an   inherent   unity.      Then   finally  follows   the 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  155 

"methodical  opposition,"  represented  by  Eeuss, 
Ewald,  the  venerable  Church  historian  Karl 
Hase,  and  above  all  Eitschl,  which  meets  Baur's 
contention  by  a  fresh  investigation,  and  a  juster 
presentation,  of  the  facts  which  he  had  per- 
verted. Eitschl,  for  example,  showed  that,  as 
Dr  Salmon  observes,  a  more  careful  examination 
of  the  Clementines  shows  that  they  did  not 
emanate  from  the  party  which  opposed  St  Paul 
in  his  lifetime.  According  to  Dr  Holtzmann's 
account  of  Eitschl's  argument,  *' there  arose,  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  an  Essene  Jewish 
Christianity,  which  Baur,  in  the  course  of  his 
investigations  into  the  Clementines,  falsely  con- 
ceived as  a  potent  influence  reaching  back  to  the 
first  apostolic  Christianity."  In  other  words, 
Baur  not  only  endeavoured  to  reconstruct  early 
Christianity  by  the  light  of  a  heretical  romance 
of  the  end  of  the  second  century,  but  he  mis- 
understood the  very  point  in  this  romance  on 
which  his  whole  edifice  rested. 

What  is  the  result  at  the  present  moment  ? 
We  have  mentioned  the  views  which  Baur  main- 
tained as  to  the  date  of  most  of  our  New  Testa- 
ment books,  and  it  will  be  sufficient  to  compare 
them  with  the  judgments  pronounced  by  Dr 
Holtzmann,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  is  sufficiently 
disposed  to  follow  "the  master."    It  is  not  always 


156  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

easy  to  ascertain  Dr  Holtzmann's  precise  views, 
for  it  is  at  once  an  advantage  in  his  book  that  he 
in  great  measure  endeavours  to  describe  the  views 
of  others,  and  a  disappointment  that  he  so  often 
reserves  his  own  opinion.  But  enough  may  be 
gathered  for  our  present  purpose.  First  of  all,  as 
to  St  Paul's  Epistles,  he  not  only  acknowledges 
the  genuineness  of  Baur's  four,  but  admits  (p.  96) 
that  the  letters  to  the  Thessalonians  were  written 
before  the  contest  respecting  the  Law  had  com- 
menced, and  he  appears  also  to  recognise  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  the  Epistle  to  Phile- 
mon, and  a  portion,  at  all  events,  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians.  His  theory  about  the  Epistles 
to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians  is,  indeed,  an 
extraordinary  instance  of  the  fanciful  inventions 
which  German  critics  are  capable  of  indulging. 
These  last  Epistles  present,  as  the  reader  will 
remember,  a  remarkable  series  of  parallel  expres- 
sions, doubtless  owing  to  their  being  written 
about  the  same  time  for  a  similar  purpose.  But 
this  is  too  simple  an  explanation  to  satisfy  a  critic 
like  Dr  Holtzmann,  and  his  theory  is,  that  there 
was  an  original  Epistle  of  St  Paul,  now  embedded, 
amidst  interpolations,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colos- 
sians. Some  ingenious  writer  made  use  of  this 
as  the  basis  on  which  to  compose  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians  as  it  now  stands.     But  when  he 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  15*7 

had  accomplished  this  forgery,  he  was  so  pleased 
with  his  handiwork  that  he  thought  a  little  of 
the  same  kind  of  development  would  improve 
the  original  Epistle.  So  he  worked  this  up  into 
a  shape  more  resembling  his  own  handiwork  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  and  the  result  was 
the  present  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  We  must 
suppose,  since  Dr  Holtzmann  deems  such  a 
process  possible,  that  it  would  be  practicable 
to  a  German  critic ;  but  apart  from  other 
absurdities,  which  we  will  presently  refer  to, 
such  an  elaborate  piece  of  mosaic  forgery  is 
inconceivable  in  any  other  quarter.  However, 
with  these  admissions  with  respect  to  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  a  great  part  of  Baur's  theory  is  already 
gone. 

With  respect  to  the  first  three  Gospels  and 
the  Acts,  Dr  Holtzmann  acknowledges  that  the 
identity  of  the  author  of  St  Luke's  Gospel  and 
of  the  Acts  "  stands  perfectly  firm."  Moreover, 
he  concludes  that  the  author  of  the  account  of 
St  Paul's  voyage  to  Eome  at  the  close  of  the 
Acts  is  St  Luke  himself ;  and  though  he  struggles 
to  escajDc  from  the  consequences  which  this  in- 
volves respecting  both  the  whole  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  and  the  Gospel  of  St  Luke,  the 
admission  is  practically  decisive  of  the  value  of 
those   two   documents    as    records    of   apostolic 


158  THE   HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

tradition.  There  has  been,  again,  a  vast  amount 
of  controversy  respecting  the  brief  reference 
which  Eusebius  has  preserved  from  Papias  to 
the  writings  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke.  But 
Dr  Holtzmann,  no  less  than  Dr  Salmon,  admits 
(p.  114)  that  ''Papias  certainly  knew  our  syn- 
optic Gospels,  even  if  not  under  their  present 
titles."  This,  of  course,  renders  it  impracticable 
for  him  to  place  our  first  two  Gospels  later  than 
the  time  of  the  Flavian  Caesars — that  is,  the  last 
thirty  years  of  the  first  century — St  Luke  and 
the  Acts  immediately  following  them ;  and  his 
chief  reason  for  putting  them  so  late  as  this 
appears  to  be  his  assumption,  that  because  they 
refer  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  they  must  have 
been  composed  after  that  event ;  prophecy,  on 
the  arbitrary  principle  of  which  Dr  Salmon  has 
exposed  the  unreasonableness,  being  assumed  to 
be  impossible.  But  what  a  mass  of  pretentious 
speculation,  from  Baur  downwards,  falls  to  the 
ground  when  it  is  thus  admitted,  even  by  a 
disciple  of  that  school,  that  the  first  two  Gospels, 
at  all  events,  are  to  be  assigned  to  the  first 
century,  the  third  Gospel  being,  at  the  most,  a 
little  later,  and  great  part  of  the  Acts,  at  least, 
being  contemporary  with  St  Paul ! 

But  the  admissions  are  not  less  striking  and 
decisive,    when   coming   from    such    a   quarter. 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  159 

respecting  the  Gospel  of  St  John.  This  Gospel, 
it  will  be  remembered,  was  represented  by  Baur 
as  marking  the  ideal  side  of  that  reconciliation 
between  Paulinism  and  Petrinism  which  was 
definitely  completed  after  a.d.  140 ;  while  the 
practical  side  is  represented  by  that  association 
of  Peter  and  Paul,  as  joint-founders  of  the 
Eoman  Church,  which  is  exhibited  in  the  Epistle 
of  Clement  of  Eome.  But  Dr  Holtzmann  (p.  110) 
gives  A.D.  93  as  the  earliest  possible  date  for 
Clement's  Epistle,  and  125  as  the  latest,  assigning 
similar  limits  to  the  so-called  Epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas. The  reconciliation  is  complete,  therefore, 
at  Eome  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  century  at 
latest,  and  the  whole  ground  is  thus  cut  away 
from  that  long  process  of  adjustment  which  Baur 
supposed  to  have  gone  forward  throughout  the 
second  century.  But  we  further  find  Dr  Holtz- 
mann admitting  the  existence  in  St  Clement's 
Epistle  of  a  series  of  apparent  points  of  contact 
with  St  John's  Gospel,  and  similar  appearances 
in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas.  He  does  not  acknow- 
ledge that  this  proves  that  these  authors  were 
actually  in  possession  of  St  John's  Gospel,  but 
he  concludes  that  they  are  associated  with  that 
Gospel  and  with  the  Epistles  of  St  John  "by 
a  certain  identity  in  the  sphere  of  their  con- 
ceptions, of  contemporary  sympathy,  and  of  their 


160  THE   HISTORICAL    CEITICISM    OF 

spiritual  atmosphere.  John  is  not  quoted,  but 
we  are  within  the  Johannine  movement."  Or, 
as  he  describes  it,  we  are  in  a  Johannine  nebula, 
though  the  star  of  the  fourth  Gospel  has  not  yet 
emerged.  But  he  admits  without  reserve  that 
the  fourth  Gospel  was  in  the  hands  of  Justin 
Martyr,  who  flourished  about  a.d.  150  (pp. 
449-453).  Now,  as  Christian  tradition  has 
always  assigned  the  Gospel  to  the  last  years 
of  St  John's  life — that  is,  to  the  very  end  of  the 
first  century — is  there  any  common -sense  in 
plunging  into  this  nebulous  hypothesis  in  order 
to  explain  the  prevalence  of  Johannine  ideas  in 
Clement  and  Barnabas,  and  the  definite,  even  if 
sparing,  use  of  the  Gospel  by  Justin  Martyr? 
Dr  Holtzmann,  in  short,  admits  the  existence 
of  phenomena,  long  and  obstinately  denied  by 
critics,  which  are  at  once  explained  by  one  of 
the  most  direct  and  authoritative  traditions  in 
the  Christian  Church.  To  what  can  it  be  as- 
cribed but  to  an  ''apologetic"  tendency — with 
the  sole  difi*erence  that  it  is  Baur,  and  not  Chris- 
tian tradition,  for  which  the  apology  is  ofi'ered — 
that  he  should  still  struggle  against  the  obvious 
conclusion,  that  the  old  belief  is  the  true  one  ? 
As  Dr  Salmon  points  out,  in  some  very  just  and 
important  observations,  when  criticism  attempts 
to  draw  these  fine  chronological  limits,  it  is  pal- 


THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  161 

pably  over-straining  its  resources,  and  is  practi- 
cally admitting  the  facts  against  which  it  has 
been  struggling. 

"I  must  remark,"  he  says  (p.  118),  "that  the  con- 
cessions which  the  later  school  of  sceptical  critics  has 
been  forced  to  make  have  evacuated  the  whole  field 
in  which  critical  science  has  a  right  to  assert  itself 
against  tradition.  We  can  well  believe  that  there 
would  be  considerable  difference  between  a  document 
written  in  a.d.  6  0  and  in  160;  and  therefore  if  the 
question  were  between  two  such  dates,  one  who  judged 
only  by  internal  evidence  might  be  justified  in  main- 
taining his  opinion  in  opposition  to  external  evidence 
But  now  that  all  sober  criticism  has  abandoned  the 
extravagantly  late  dates  which  at  one  time  were 
assigned  to  the  Gospels,  the  difference  between  the 
contending  parties  becomes  so  small  that  mere 
criticism  cannot  without  affectation  pretend  to  be 
competent  to  give  a  decision.  Take,  for  example,  the 
difference  between  an  orthodox  critic,  who  is  willing 
to  believe  that  the  fourth  Gospel  was  written  by  the 
Apostle  John  in  extreme  old  age,  towards  the  end  of 
the  first  century,  and  a  sceptical  critic  of  the  moderate 
school,  who  is  willing  to  allow  it  to  have  been  written 
early  in  the  second  century.  It  seems  to  me  that 
this  difference  is  smaller  than  criticism  can  reasonably 
pronounce  upon.  For  I  count  it  unreasonable  to  say 
that  it  is  credible  a  book  should  have  been  written 
eighty  years  after  our  Lord's  death,  and  incredible  it 
should  have  been  written  only  sixty ;  when  we  have 
scarcely  any  documentary  evidence  as  to  the  history 
of  the  Church,  or  the  progress  of  Christian  thought 
during   the   interval.      So    I   think   that   the   gradual 


162  THE   HISTORICAL   CKITICISM    OF 

approaches  which  Bavir's  successors  have  been  making 
to  the  traditional  theory  indicate  that  criticism  will  in 
the  end  find  itself  forced  to  acquiesce  in  the  account 
of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels  which  the  Church  has 
always  received." 

It  appears  to  us  that  these  simple  but  weighty 
observations  mark  the  practical  conclusion  of 
the  long  and  stormy  critical  debate  we  have 
been  sketching.  The  reader  will  find  in  Dr 
Salmon's  pages  an  interesting  and  candid  guide 
in  following  the  controversy  on  each  book  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  it  would  take  us  far  be- 
yond the  limits  of  an  article  to  follow  him  in 
detail.  But  having  thus  illustrated  the  general 
character  and  practical  issue  of  the  discussion, 
we  are  anxious  to  draw  attention  to  one  or  two 
general  considerations  of  importance  which  seem 
to  arise  from  it.  In  the  first  place,  it  must  be 
evident  what  practical  significance  arises  from 
the  mere  fact  of  the  collapse  of  the  edifice 
which  Baur  erected  amidst  such  excitement — an 
excitement  of  equal  alarm  on  the  one  side  and 
of  applause  on  the  other.  We  see  one  of  the 
most  ingenious,  learned,  and  brilliant  of  German 
scholars  devoting  his  lifetime  to  the  elaboration 
of  a  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Christian  Church 
and  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  which  was  to 
take  the  place  of  traditional  belief  on  the  subject. 


THE   NEW    TESTAMENT.  163 

It  was  to  supply  a  positive  and  historical  account 
of  these  momentous  events,  which  would  remove 
them  from  the  sphere  of  the  miraculous  and 
supernatural,  and  bring  them  within  the  circle 
of  ordinary  human  experience.  Instead  of  dis- 
sipating them  at  once,  like  Strauss,  into  a  cloud 
of  myths,  or  endeavouring,  like  the  older  rati- 
onalists, to  minimise  the  miraculous  elements 
in  them,  it  was  to  show  step  by  step  how  they 
arose,  and  to  account  for  even  the  smallest  de- 
tails in  their  composition  and  expression.  The 
attempt  met  the  inclinations  prompted  by  the 
dominant  philosophy  of  the  day  in  Germany, 
and  was  at  once  seized  upon  by  a  school  of  eager 
critics  as  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  Christi- 
anity. The  primary  assumptions  of  the  school 
acquired  in  a  short  time  the  prestige  of  great 
critical  discoveries,  and  in  a  few  years  more  they 
began  to  be  talked  of  in  this  country,  by  those 
who  are  in  sympathy  with  the  spirit  by  which 
they  were  originally  prompted,  as  though  they 
were  the  accepted  results  of  German  scholarship. 
Suggestions  were  insinuated  in  many  lay  circles 
that  English  divines  and  clergy  were,  from 
ignorance  or  self-interest,  wedded  to  obsolete 
traditions,  while  a  light  was  dawning  on  the 
Continent  which  would  before  long  disperse 
the   spectres  of  the  ancient  faith.     Meanwhile 


164  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

though  the  German  scholars,  with  a  convention- 
alism unworthy  of  their  claims  to  candour,  do 
their  best  to  keep  up  the  illusion  of  the  great- 
ness of  the  famous  Tubingen  school,  the  force 
of  facts  and  of  increasing  evidence  has  been 
steadily  compelling  them  not  only  to  recede 
from  particular  positions  maintained  by  Baur, 
but  to  recognise  that  his  whole  theory  of  early 
Church  history  is  fallacious.  One  of  the  most 
striking  illustrations  of  this  result  is  afforded  in 
a  passage  of  Dr  Holtzmann's  summary  of  the 
present  position  of  criticism.  He  says  (p.  200) 
that 

"  Baur's  successor  in  the  Tubingen  chair,  Carl  Weiz- 
sacker,  describes  it  as  a  prejudice  to  suppose  that 
in  the  post-apostolic  age  there  were  only  Paulinists 
and  legalising  Jewish -Christians,  and  points  to  the 
broad  basis  of  Christian  life,  on  which  the  struggle  of 
principles  was  decided  beforehand.  He  observes  that 
the  original  apostles  had  never  been  specifically  op- 
ponents of  Paul,  although,  as  they  remained  Jews, 
they  maintained  a  preliminary  restriction ;  but  Gentile 
Christianity  was  so  much  the  more  recognised  by 
them,  as  it  was  by  no  means  the  exclusive  creation  of 
St  Paul,  but  impulses  towards  it  may  be  traced  back 
to  Barnabas  and  ApoUos ;  and  in  places  like  Antioch 
and  Eome  communities  free  from  obligation  to  the 
Jewish  law  had  arisen  without  the  action  of  Paul, 
forming  a  kind  of  uncultivated  field  of  Gentile  Christi- 
anity, for  the  occupation  of  which  at  a  later  date  Paul 
and  the  Judaists  alike  could  exert  themselves." 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  165 

Baur's  successor  discovering,  at  this  time  of 
day,  that  the  post-apostolic  Church  was  not 
entirely  composed  of  two  antagonistic  parties 
of  Paulinists  and  anti-Paulinists,  and  that  the 
elder  apostles  were  not  direct  antagonists  of 
Paul,  affords  a  stranger  commentary  on  the 
history  and  fame  of  the  Tubingen  school  than 
could  have  been  dreamed  of  by  its  opponents. 

But  in  view  of  these  results,  it  is  surely  time 
for  Englishmen  of  all  schools  to  ask  themselves 
what  is  the  value  to  be  placed  upon  a  kind  of 
criticism  which  has  proved  itself,  in  so  conspic- 
uous an  instance,  to  be  capable  of  such  porten- 
tous errors.  People  have  talked  for  some  time 
past  about  German  scholarship  and  German  criti- 
cism as  if  it  had  some  of  the  attributes  of  Papal 
infallibility,  or  as  though,  at  all  events,  it  should 
be  treated  with  general  deference  and  submis- 
sion ;  and  it  turns  out  that  the  hypothesis  which 
in  recent  times  laid  the  chief  claim  to  this  re- 
spect started  from  a  blunder,  proceeded  by  shut- 
ting its  eyes  to  facts,  and  ended  in  conclusions 
now  proved  to  be  preposterous.  As  we  have 
already  said,  we  entertain,  in  some  respects,  no 
ungenial  feelings  towards  German  critics ;  and, 
above  all,  we  would  guard  ourselves  against  the 
hasty  prejudice  by  which  German  theology  and 
criticism,  to  which  the  world  owes  an  incalcul- 


166  THE   HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

able  debt,  is  too  frequently  confounded,  in  a 
wholly  unjust  condemnation,  with  the  rash 
speculations  of  particular  schools  and  periods. 
Dr  Salmon  pays  a  just  and  generous  tribute  to 
the  admirable  labour  and  devotion  which  Ger- 
man critics  of  the  sceptical  school  have  bestowed 
on  the  books  they  would  dethrone  from  their 
inspired  authority. 

"It  is,"  he  confesses  (p.  129),  "scarcely  creditable 
to  Christians  that  in  recent  years  far  more  pains  have 
been  expended  on  the  minute  study  of  the  N'ew 
Testament  writings  by  those  who  recognise  in  them 
no  divine  element,  than  by  those  who  believe  in  their 
inspiration.  In  fact,  their  very  belief  in  inspiration, 
fixing  the  thoughts  of  Christians  on  the  divine  author 
of  the  Bible,  made  them  indifferent  or  even  averse  to 
a  comparative  examination  of  the  work'  of  the  re- 
spective human  authors  of  the  sacred  books.  They 
were  sure  there  could  be  no  contradiction  between 
them,  and  it  was  all  one  to  their  faith  in  what  part  of 
the  Bible  a  statement  was  made,  so  that  no  practical 
object  seemed  to  be  gained  by  inquiring  whether  or 
not  what  was  said  by  Matthew  was  said  also  by  Mark. 
In  modern  times  the  study  of  the  New  Testament  has 
been  taken  up  by  critics  who,  far  from  shutting  their 
eyes  to  discrepancies,  are  eager  to  magnify  into  a  con- 
tradiction the  smallest  indication  they  can  discover 
of  opposite  '  tendencies '  in  the  sacred  books ;  and  we 
must  at  least  acknowledge  the  closeness  and  careful- 
ness of  their  reading,  and  be  willing  in  that  respect  to 
profit  by  their  example." 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  167 

The  investigations  of  these  critics  have,  more- 
over, thrown  indirectly  most  valuable  light  on 
the  history  of  the  early  Church,  and  on  the 
development  of  thought  exhibited  in  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament.  They  have  compelled  a 
more  general  and  adequate  recognition  of  the 
human  element  in  the  inspired  writings,  and 
have  done  much  to  enlarge  and  increase  our 
capacity  for  following  with  intelligent  sympathy 
the  organic  life  of  early  Christianity.  But  all 
these  valuable  results  ought  no  longer  to  be 
allowed  to  disguise  the  fact,  that  the  charac- 
teristic motive  and  the  main  contention  of  the 
criticism  in  question  have  been  based  on  an 
enormous  error  of  judgment,  and  that  the  labour 
and  ingenuity  we  have  acknowledged  have  been 
directed  to  the  most  perverse  conclusions.  That 
this  is  the  fact  is  substantiated  by  the  admissions 
of  such  unimpeachable  witnesses  as  Dr  Holtz- 
mann,  and  we  should  miss  a  most  important 
lesson  if  we  failed  to  recognise  it,  and  to  state  it 
plainly.  German  criticism  will  always  command 
respect  and  attention,  but  it  ought  never  again, 
on  subjects  like  these,  to  exert  the  spell  which  it 
threw  over  much  theological  speculation  during 
the  past  thirty  years.  It  has  been  proved,  in 
its  most  fascinating  and  most  successful  form,  to 
have  led  its  followers  into  a  ditch,  and  to  have 


168  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

been,  for  its  avowed  purposes,  no  better  than 
the  blind  leading  the  blind. 

The  moment  is  not  an  inopportune  one  for 
recalling  this  experience.  Another  sensational 
school  of  criticism  has  been  rising  into  prom- 
inence during  the  last  few  years,  which  is 
attempting  in  respect  to  the  Old  Testament  a 
somewhat  similar  enterprise  to  that  which  Baur 
attempted  with  the  New.  Wellhausen  and  his 
followers  are  similarly  endeavouring  to  explain 
the  Old  Testament  as  a  natural  human  develop- 
ment by  turning  it  topsy-turvy,  and  would 
make  out  that  the  Law  of  Moses  is  the  product 
and  not  the  starting-point  of  Jewish  life  and 
history ;  so  that,  as  it  has  been  concisely  put, 
in  place  of  the  expression,  "  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,"  we  ought  to  speak  of  "  the  Prophets 
and  the  Law."  This  theory  has  been  received 
with  similar  admiration  in  Germany  to  that 
which  greeted  the  enterprise  of  Baur,  and  it  has 
been  echoed  over  here,  in  some  quarters  where 
more  caution  and  sense  of  responsibility  might 
have  been  expected,  as  the  latest  oracle  of  an 
infallible  criticism.  The  history  of  the  school 
of  Baur  will  suggest  to  thoughtful  minds  the 
wisdom  of  exercising  a  good  deal  of  patient 
reserve  before  allowing  themselves  to  be  much 
disturbed  in  either  direction  by  this  new  hypo- 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  169 

thesis.  It  can  hardly  be  supported  with  more 
brilliancy,  or  meet  with  more  apparent  success, 
than  that  of  the  Tubingen  school ;  and  it  may 
meet  the  same  fate.  The  researches  it  stimulates 
may  bring  to  light  many  valuable  results,  and 
may  lead  to  a  better  apprehension  of  Jewish 
history  and  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  But  we 
are  justified,  by  the  experience  on  which  we 
have  been  dwelling,  in  looking  with  suspicion 
on  a  German  attempt,  however  brilliant,  to 
overthrow  the  fundamental  conceptions  of  our 
traditional  belief.  Such  criticism  has  been 
proved,  in  a  matter  far  more  accessible  to  its 
resources,  capable  of  an  entire  failure  of  judg- 
ment ;  and  a  presumption  is  thus  established 
for  the  present  against  its  claims  to  deference 
in  a  new  enterprise. 

It  is  not  less  important,  however,  to  indicate, 
before  we  dismiss  the  subject,  the  point  in  which 
this  error  of  judgment  consists.  It  lies  in  the 
failure  of  such  critics  to  enter  into  the  dominant 
spirit  and  main  purport  of  the  writings  with 
which  they  are  dealing,  and  in  the  consequent 
concentration  of  their  attention  on  mere  secon- 
dary details.  We  have  noticed  the  cold  and 
mechanical  tone  of  criticism  which  marks  Dr 
Holtzmann's  learned  work,  and  it  is  eminently 
characteristic  of  the   defect  to  which  we  refer. 


170  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

Having  carefully  read  througli  his  volume,  word 
for  word,  we  should  find  it  difficult  to  point  to 
half-a-dozen  passages  in  which  he  betrays  any 
sense  of  the  intense  spiritual  life,  and  the  burn- 
ing Christian  thought,  which,  at  any  rate,  are 
the  most  characteristic  features  of  the  writings 
with  which  he  has  to  deal.  His  theory,  already 
mentioned,  of  the  origin  of  the  Epistles  to  the 
Colossians  and  Ephesians,  is  a  conspicuous  in- 
stance in  point.  It  comes  to  this,  that  some 
post  -  apostolic  writer,  getting  possession  of  a 
letter  of  St  Paul's  which  forms  the  kernel  of  the 
present  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  proceeded  to 
remould  and  ex^Dand  it  into  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  his  main  motive  being  inspired  by 
his  "  tendency "  to  gloss  over  the  divergence 
between  Pauline  and  Jewish  Christianity.  Now, 
side  by  side  with  this  explanation,  let  us  recall 
to  the  mind  of  the  reader  the  following  passage 
from  the  third  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  which,  as  not  being  in  that  to  the 
Colossians,  must  have  been  composed  by  the 
supposed  inventor : — 

"  I  desire  that  ye  faint  not  at  my  tribulations  for 
you,  which  are  your  glory.  For  this  cause  I  bow  my 
knees  unto  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of 
whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and  earth  is  named, 
that  He  would  grant  you,  according  to  the  riches  of 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  171 

His  glory,  to  be  strengthened  with  might  by  His  Spirit 
in  the  inner  man ;  that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your 
hearts  by  faith;  that  ye,  being  rooted  and  grounded 
in  love,  may  be  able  to  comprehend  with  all  saints 
what  is  the  breadth,  and  length,  and  depth,  and  height; 
and  to  know  the  love  of  Christ,  which  passeth  know- 
ledge, that  ye  might  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of 
God.  i^ow  unto  Him  that  is  able  to  do  exceeding 
abundantly  above  all  that  we  ask  or  think,  according 
to  the  power  that  worketh  in  us,  unto  Him  be  glory 
in  the  Church  by  Christ  Jesus  throughout  all  ages, 
world  without  end." 

Is  that,  we  would  ask,  a  passage  which  can 
conceivably  be  attributed  to  a  partisan  of  the 
post-apostolic  age,  concerned  mainly  with  facil- 
itating the  construction  of  a  plausible  modus 
vivendi  between  adherents  and  opponents  of 
Judaistic  views  ?  A  critic  who  fails  to  perceive 
that  the  first  characteristic  of  an  Epistle  such 
as  that  to  the  Ephesians  is  that  it  springs 
directly,  in  one  earnest  flow  of  ardent  and 
practical  devotion,  from  the  heart  of  a  writer 
of  extraordinary  depth  of  thought  and  feeling, 
and  who  can  dissect  it  as  though  it  were  the 
cold-blooded  compilation  of  a  calculating  pam- 
phleteer— such  a  critic  is  disqualified  for  his  task 
from  the  very  outset.  While  he  is  labouring 
over  a  minute  comparison  of  phrases  and  words 
and  particles,  the  essential  spirit  is  escaping  him. 


172  THE   HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

and  he  is  destitute   of  the  first  elements  of  a 
sound  and  broad  judgment. 

But  perhaps  the  most  conspicuous  instance  of 
this  cardinal  error  in  the  criticism  of  Germany 
is  to  be  seen  in  its  treatment  of  the  Gospel 
of  St  John.  One  would  never  suppose,  from 
reading  the  greater  part  of  the  discussion  on  this 
subject  in  books  of  Dr  Holtzmann's  school,  that 
the  central  interest  of  St  John's  Gospel  consisted 
in  its  intense  and  affecting  representation  of  the 
personal  character  and  work  of  the  Saviour.  We 
are  overwhelmed  with  speculations  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  Logos  doctrine,  and  with  an  end- 
less mass  of  disputed  and  ever-disputable  details, 
while  all  the  time  the  main  fact  is  left  out  of 
sight  —  the  fact  which  has  secured  and  still 
secures  the  hold  of  that  Gospel  over  Christian 
hearts — that  the  Saviour  lives  and  speaks  in  its 
pages  with  a  supreme  power  and  reality.  Dr 
Holtzmann  sums  up  a  long  discussion  by  saying 
(p.  436)  that  "  the  riddle  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is 
solved,  so  far  as  it  is  capable  of  solution,  by  a 
correct  apprehension  of  the  course  of  history 
which  is  mirrored  in  it — of  the  whole  past  which 
Christianity  lived  through  since  the  days  of 
John  the  Baptist  to  the  time  of  the  Evangelist  a 
hundred  years  later."  Thus  we  read  in  the  Acts 
(xix.  1-7)  of  persons  who  had  been  baptised  into 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  173 

John's  baptism  being  furtber  baptised  by  Paul 
into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  —  or,  in  Dr 
Holtzmann's  language,  of  the  merging  of  the 
school  of  John  into  the  school  of  Christ ;  and 
the  purpose  of  the  narrative  at  the  commence- 
ment of  St  John's  Gospel  of  the  relations  between 
the  Baptist  and  our  Lord  is  supposed  to  be  to 
give  this  experience  of  Church  history  a  basis 
in  the  life  of  our  Lord  Himself.  Similarly,  the 
account  of  our  Lord's  discourse  with  the  Samari- 
tan woman  is  said  to  be  suggested  by  the  con- 
version of  the  Samaritans  by  Philip,  as  recorded 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  event  referred 
to  really  occurred  in  the  Church's  life,  but  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  represents  it  as  an 
event  in  the  life  of  our  Lord,  and  transfers  it 
to  His  days.  Similarly,  the  eighth  chapter,  in 
which  our  Lord  denounces  the  Jews  as  of  their 
father  the  devil,  is  to  be  understood  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Gnostic  idea  of  the  double  seed  of 
mankind.  The  tenth  chapter,  with  its  exquisite 
parable  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  is  to  be  explained 
in  reference  to  the  requirements  of  the  pastoral 
and  episcopal  office,  and  so  on ;  and  our  Lord's 
foreknowledge,  as  described  in  St  John's  Gospel, 
of  the  future  of  His  cause  and  of  His  Church,  is 
to  be  explained  by  reference  to  the  needs  and 
the   crisis   of    a   far -advanced    development   of 


174  THE    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF 

Christianity.  Would  it  be  possible  for  learned 
men  to  indulge  in  this  solemn  trifling  if  their 
attention  were  not  diverted  from  the  main  and 
essential  characteristics  of  the  narrative  ? 

Kenan  has  committed  the  same  blunder — we 
do  not  know  whether  it  ought  not  to  be  called  a 
crime — in  another  form.  He  acknowledges  the 
enormous  difficulty  of  supposing  that  a  Gospel  so 
full  of  "  grace  and  truth "  can  have  been  com- 
posed by  a  man  who,  as  is  evident,  intended 
throughout  to  make  it  understood  that  he  was 
the  Apostle  John,  when  he  was  no  such  person. 
But  he  is  induced  to  overcome  this  difficulty  by 
the  aversion  he  feels  from  the  "  dry,  metaphys- 
ical, flat,  and  impossible"  discourses  which  the 
Gospel  puts  into  the  mouth  of  our  Lord.  Pro- 
fessor Hpltzmann  is  superior  to  such  an  absur- 
dity, and  in  one  of  the  few  passages  in  his  book 
which  betray  any  sympathetic  feeling,  says  that 
"  the  whole  pathos  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus 
exhausts  itself  in  carrying  out  the  thought  that 
all  salvation,  temporal  as  well  as  eternal,  is  in- 
volved in  faith  in  the  single  person  of  the  Son  of 
God  "  (p.  417).  But  this  "  pathos  "  involves  the 
whole  problem.  Who  invented — who  could  have 
invented — a  picture  at  once  so  sublime  and  so 
moving,  so  lofty  and  yet  so  tender,  so  instinct 
with  the  most  delicate  human  feelings  as  well  as 


THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  175 

with  the  divinest  life,  as  that  which  the  fourth 
Gospel  presents  of  our  Lord  ?  All  other  con- 
siderations are  secondary  in  comparison  with 
this.  It  is  perfectly  clear  from  Dr  Holtzmann's 
discussion,  in  which  he  states  at  great  length 
and  with  careful  impartiality  the  various  views 
which  have  been  held,  that  critics  are  unable 
to  agree  on  any  single  point  which  is  decisive 
against  the  authorship  of  St  John.  He  himself 
says  (p.  420),  in  summarising  the  history  of 
criticism  on  the  subject,  that  **'  a  multitude  of 
various  standpoints  presented  themselves,  and 
the  Johannine  question  appeared  more  and  more 
— '  je  langer  je  mehr  ' — an  open  one."  But  if  at 
all  an  open  one  on  the  grounds  of  historical  and 
literary  criticism,  it  should  be  regarded  as  settled 
at  once  on  grounds  of  practical  and  spiritual 
common-sense.  A  thousand  minor  literary  and 
historical  improbabilities  are  less  improbable 
than  that  the  picture  of  the  Saviour's  acts  and 
words  in  St  John's  Gospel  is  the  work  of  a 
second-century  compiler — still  worse,  as  Baur 
supposes,  of  an  ecclesiastical  romancer. 

In  a  word,  the  whole  "  Tendency  theory," 
which  would  explain  the  great  mass  of  New 
Testament  writings  as  composed  for  an  oblique 
purpose,  ought  to  have  been  intolerable  from  the 
outset  to  any  one  who  could  appreciate,  their 


176  THE    HISTORICAL    CEITICISM    OF 

main  character,  and  the  simple,  practical  object 
by  which  they  are  obviously  animated.  We  can 
only  ascribe  its  acceptance  to  a  kind  of  colour- 
blindness, which  can  discern  nothing  but  a  single 
ray  of  the  spectrum  in  the  white  and  brilliant 
light  of  the  sun.  It  is  worth  bearing  in  mind 
also  that,  if  such  theories  have  any  truth  in 
them,  it  must  be  assumed  that  the  Christian 
Church  could  supply,  down  to  at  least  the  year 
140,  persons  otherwise  wholly  unknown,  who 
were  capable  of  producing  works  on  a  level  with 
the  highest  productions  of  apostolic  thought. 
Whoever  will  read  Dr  Salmon's  interesting  ac- 
count of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels,  and  of  other 
non-canonical  books,  will  appreciate  the  proba- 
bility of  such  a  supposition.  But  critics  like 
Dr  Holtzmann  seem  to  have  no  eye  for  the  gulf 
which,  in  point  of  power  and  wisdom,  separates 
inspired  from  uninspired  writings,  and  one  of 
the  points  he  chiefly  insists  upon  is  the  un- 
reasonableness of  supposing  that  there  was  any 
break  or  "  fall "  between  apostolic  and  post- 
apostolic  times.  One  of  the  first  great  facts, 
which  must  be  patent  to  any  sound  criticism,  is 
the  reality  and  the  magnitude  of  such  a  fall. 

In  a  word,  the  criticism  which  Dr  Salmon,  in 
conjunction  with  the  Bishop  of  Durham  and 
Dr  Westcott,  has,  we  believe,  exploded,  at  least 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  l77 

for  this  country,  has  failed  from  a  cause  which 
is  well  indicated  in  the  title  to  which  it  aspired. 
Dr  Holtzmann  (p.  179)  dwells  on  the  distinction 
between  the  "lower"  and  the  "higher"  criti- 
cism. The  so-called  lower  criticism,  of  which 
he  treats  Bengel  and  Wetstein  as  representa- 
tives, concerned  itself  with  manuscripts,  trans- 
lations, and  other  means  of  restoring  the  original 
text.  But  "the  higher,  the  inner  criticism,  is 
a  product  of  that  Protestant  science  which  had 
freed  itself,  in  accordance  with  its  principles, 
from  every  dogmatic  influence  upon  its  judg- 
ment." In  theory,  it  endeavours  to  penetrate 
into  the  inner  and  higher  elements  of  the  works 
which  it  criticises,  and  to  judge  them  by  the 
degree  in  which  they  conform  to  the  standards 
thus  established.  But  the  higher  criticism  of 
Germany,  as  represented  by  such  critics  as  Dr 
Holtzmann  and  the  Tubingen  school,  has  con- 
spicuously failed  in  this  very  attempt.  They 
have  remained  at  the  very  portals  of  apostolic 
and  Christian  thought,  deterred  by  the  dis- 
traction of  a  single,  and  after  all  a  secondary 
and  passing  controversy,  from  penetrating  to  its 
centre.  The  real  source  of  Christian  life,  devo- 
tion to  a  risen  and  living  Saviour,  with  the  con- 
sequent endeavour  to  exhibit  in  life  the  Spirit 
He  bestows — this,  which  is  the  true  motive  of 

M 


178      HISTORICAL    CRITICISM    OF   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

Gospels  and  Epistles  alike — is  obscured  to  them 
by  an  exaggerated  apprehension  of  an  episode  in 
the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  ;  and  they 
allow  their  eyes  to  be  blinded  by  a  confused 
romance  of  the  second  century  to  the  blaze  of 
spiritual,  mental,  and  moral  force  by  which  the 
New  Testament  writings  are  distinguished  from 
all  others  since  apostolic  times.  It  is  all  very 
well  to  be  free  from  dogmatic  prepossessions,  but 
whoever  is  to  interpret  Christian  writings,  and 
distinguish  the  false  from  the  spurious,  must 
be  in  sympathy  with  essential  Christian  truth. 
Criticism  is  really  "high"  in  proportion  as  it 
can  enter  into  the  thought  and  heart  of  Apostles, 
in  proportion  as  it  is  animated  and  controlled 
by  the  Spirit  which  inspired  them,  and  can 
share  the  spiritual  experiences  by  which  they 
were  moved.  For  this  reason,  the  tradition  of 
the  Church,  so  far  as  it  represents  the  spiritual 
judgment  of  Christians,  embodies,  after  all,  a  far 
"  higher  "  criticism  than  that  which  has  hitherto 
usurped  its  name.  But  its  verdict  needs  to  be 
vindicated  from  time  to  time  by  the  best  re- 
sources of  learning  or  science,  and  this  is  the 
service  which,  for  all  intelligent  English  readers, 
has  been  so  admirably  performed  by  Dr  Salmon. 


179 


THE  LATEST  ATTACK  ON  CHRISTIANITY. 


The  following  article  was  published  in  the  '  Quarterly 
Eeview '  of  July  1887,  upon  the  late  Mr  James  Cotter 
Morison's  work,  '  The  Service  of  Man,  an  Essay  towards 
the  Religion  of  the  Future.' 


In  reviewing  this  book  we  are  distracted  by 
somewhat  conflicting  feelings.  It  is  in  some 
respects  so  bad  a  book,  and  in  others  so  feeble 
and  illogical,  that  it  might  seem  best  left  alone. 
The  author,  moreover,  tells  us  at  the  commence- 
ment of  his  preface  that  he  has  not  been  able, 
in  consequence  of  illness,  to  finish  his  work 
according  to  his  original  plan.  Not  only  has 
his  design  been  thus  carried  out  incompletely, 
but  there  are  traces,  in  the  last  chapter  at  all 
events,  that  he  has  not  been  able  to  execute 
thoroughly  even  the,  parts  which  he  has  pub- 
lished. We  would  fain,  therefore,  have  regarded, 
the  faults  of  which  the  book  is  full  as  attribut- 
able in  charity  to  the  weakness  of  ill-health,  and 


180      THE   LATEST    ATTACK    ON   CHRISTIANITY. 

we  enter  with  some  reluctance  upon  a  criticism 
which  must  needs  be  severe.  In  spite,  more- 
over, of  the  author's  perversities,  and  even  mon- 
strosities, of  thought  and  feeling,  he  exhibits  in 
part  of  the  volume  so  much  sympathy  with  great 
characters  and  great  ideals,  and  he  expresses 
such  warm,  though  mistaken  philanthropy,  that 
we  could  almost  have  been  content  to  leave  his 
errors  to  the  sure  correction  of  experience.  But 
on  the  whole  we  cannot  satisfy  ourselves  that 
such  a  course  would  be  just  to  the  public,  or  to 
the  faith  which  Mr  Morison  assails.  The  work 
is  in  many  respects  the  most  bitter  and  un- 
scrupulous attack  which  has  been  made  on 
Christianity  in  England  within  our  generation. 
It  is  the  work  of  a  man  who  enjoys  distinction 
in  the  world  of  letters,  and  who  must  know 
very  well  what  he  is  about  in  putting  it  forth. 
It  is  not  like  an  imperfect  expression  of  crude 
difficulties  by  an  inexperienced  writer,  prompted 
by  some  hasty  impulse.  It  is  deliberately  pub- 
lished by  a  man  of  matured  literary  experience, 
who  knows  the  responsibility  entailed  by  reck- 
less reasoning  and  unjust  accusations  in  matters 
of  serious  importance.  In  spite,  too,  of  the 
fallacy  of  its  arguments,  it  is  written  in  an  in- 
cisive and  vigorous  style,  and  its  misrepresenta- 
tions are  so  effectively  urged  as  to  be  calculated 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       181 

to  do  serious  mischief  if  they  are  not  exposed. 
Lastly,  the  writer  claims  to  speak  on  behalf  of 
important  schools  of  philosophical  thought  in 
our  day,  and  represents,  we  suppose,  particu- 
larly the  school  of  Positivism.  From  his  posi- 
tion and  reputation,  much  of  what  he  says  must 
be  assumed  to  illustrate  a  considerable  current 
of  anti- Christian  thought,  and  to  exhibit  its 
sources.  If  the  book,  therefore,  were  ignored, 
we  might  seem  to  be  declining  a  challenge  from 
a  competent  antagonist ;  and  as  the  challenge 
has  been  given  by  a  person  who  should  be  fully 
conscious  of  its  gravity,  he  cannot  complain  if 
we  accept  it  seriously,  and  subject  it  to  a 
thorough  and  severe  investigation.  The  result 
will,  we  think,  be  to  afford  a  conspicuous  in- 
stance of  the  recklessness,  the  ignorance,  the 
inconsistency,  and  the  bad  feeling  by  which 
the  most  presumptuous  attacks  on  our  religion 
are  generally  characterised. 

Mr  Morison  begins  with  a  number  of  confident 
assertions  respecting  the  decay  of  belief  in  Chris- 
tianity, on  which  it  might  be  enough  to  say  that 
they  are  mere  assertions,  and  in  our  judgment, 
to  say  the  least,  gross  exaggerations.  That 
doubts  which  are  in  some  measure  of  a  new 
character  have  of  late  years  been  making  way 
in   certain   classes   is  no   doubt   true.      Among 


182       THE   LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

men  of  science  and  among  critics  there  have 
been  too  many  who  have  hastily  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  recent  discoveries  are  incom- 
patible with  the  truths  and  facts  of  our  faith, 
and  who  have  propagated  this  form  of  scepticism 
with  mischievous  success.  Mr  Morison,  no 
doubt,  lives  among  them  and  hears  them  echo- 
ing one  another's  assertions,  and  is  persuaded 
that  they  represent  the  tendency  of  the  world 
at  large.  But  the  course  of  human  thought  at 
any  time  is  a  very  large  and  complicated  subject, 
and  those  who  are  absorbed  in  a  particular  cur- 
rent are  rarely  able  to  estimate  the  direction  of 
the  main  stream.  Mr  Morison  waves  Bishop 
Butler's  authority  aside  with  the  somewhat  inso- 
lent condescension  characteristic  of  his  school  of 
thought,  acknowledging  the  success  of  his  work 
"  as  a  reply  to  the  shallow  Deism  of  his  day  " — 
not  a  very  high  estimate  of  a  book  which  stands 
to  theology  much  in  the  position  which  its  al- 
most contemporary  work,  Newton's  '  Principia,' 
holds  to  science.  But  whatever  the  value  of 
Butler's  arguments  at  the  present  time,  he  is  an 
indisputable  witness  to  one  matter  of  fact.  Those 
against  whom  Bishop  Butler  wrote  were  quite  as 
confident  as  Mr  Morison  is  now,  that  belief  in 
Christianity  was  coming  to  an  end.  "It  is 
come,"  says  the  bishop,  "  I  know  not  how,  to 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       183 

be  taken  for  granted  by  many  persons  that 
Christianity  is  not  so  much  as  a  subject  of 
inquiry,  but  that  it  is  now  at  length  discovered 
to  be  fictitious;"  and  Swift,  in  his  inimitable 
'Argument  to  prove  that  the  abolishing  of  Chris- 
tianity in  England  might,  as  things  now  stand, 
be  attended  with  some  inconveniences,  and 
perhaps  not  produce  those  many  good  effects 
proposed  thereby,'  ironically  says  that  "  the 
system  of  the  Gospel,  after  the  fate  of  other 
systems,  is  generally  antiquated  and  exploded, 
and  the  mass  or  body  of  the  common  people, 
among  whom  it  seems  to  have  had  its  latest 
credit,  are  now  grown  as  much  ashamed  of  it  as 
their  betters."  But  the  course  of  events  has 
proved  that  the  freethinkers  of  Butler's  day 
were  entirely  mistaken  in  their  estimate  of  the 
relative  forces  at  work,  and  that  Christianity  was 
soon  to  exhibit  a  new  and  vigorous  life. 

This  instance  is  at  least  a  warning  against  such 
confident  prophecies  as  Mr  Morison  indulges  in ; 
and  we  must  in  particular  remind  him  that  con- 
spicuous facts  are  entirely  against  him  in  his 
repeated  assertions  that  science  has  established 
conclusions  which  are  absolutely  incompatible 
with  Christian  faith,  so  that  "the  shock  now 
is  along  the  whole  conterminous  line  between 
science  and  theology,"  or  that  ''the  width  of  the 


184      THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

breach  between  reason  and  faith,  between  theo- 
logy and  science,  is  hardly  denied."  The  name 
of  the  late  Professor  Clerk  Maxwell,  than  whom 
there  has  not  been  of  late  years  a  greater  man 
of  science  nor  a  more  sincere  Christian,  would 
alone  be  a  sufficient  witness  against  him.  But 
when  the  President  of  the  Eoyal  Society,  Sir 
George  Stokes,  publicly  throws  his  great  scien- 
tific authority  into  the  support  of  Christian  be- 
lief, and  accepts,  for  instance,  the  presidency  of 
the  Victoria  Institute,  when  other  members  of 
the  Eoyal  Society,  fully  acquainted  with  the 
results  of  science,  hold  eminent  positions  in  the 
Church  and  in  Church  institutions,  there  is 
something  very  inexcusable,  and  even  offensive, 
in  boastful  assertions  which  imply  an  aspersion 
either  on  the  mental  capacity  or  on  the  good 
faith  of  such  men.  In  Butler's  words,  such 
considerations  are  enough  to  prove  **  that  any 
reasonable  man,  who  will  thoroughly  consider 
the  matter,  may  be  as  much  assured,  as  he  is 
of  his  own  being,  that  it  is  not,  however,  so 
clear  a  case  that  there  is  nothing "  in  the 
claims  of  Christianity  to  be  compatible  with 
science.  Mr  Morison's  chapter  on  the  Decay  of 
Belief  is  in  great  part  a  piece  of  mere  scientific 
browbeating,  to  which  the  general  answer  we 
have  indicated  is  sufficient.     There  are,  to  say 


THE   LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       185 

the  least,  men  of  first-rate  scientific  eminence, 
who  must  be  known  to  Mr  Morison,  who  do 
not  believe  that  either  geology,  or  biology,  or 
anthropology,  or  any  other  science,  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion; 
and  this  being  the  case,  it  is  unnecessary  for  us 
to  vindicate  in  detail  the  compatibility  of  Christ- 
ian doctrines  with  particular  scientific  theories 
— least  of  all  with  one  which,  to  say  the  least,  is 
as  yet  very  imperfectly  defined,  that  of  evolu- 
tion. The  field  of  the  relations  between  science 
and  theology  is  too  wide  to  be  entered  upon  in 
detail  in  this  place,  and  we  prefer  to  give  our 
main  attention  to  the  definite  arguments  against 
Christianity  which  Mr  Morison  advances  on  his 
own  behalf. 

But  there  are  one  or  two  points  in  this  brow- 
beating chapter,  of  which  it  is  worth  while  to 
take  particular  notice,  as  they  illustrate  either 
the  ignorance  or  the  recklessness  with  which  we 
have  charged  the  writer.  A  particularly  flagrant 
instance  is  afforded  by  his  treatment  of  Arch- 
bishop Whately's  observation,  that 

"  no  complete  or  consistent  account  has  ever  been  given 
of  the  manner  in  which  the  Christian  religion,  suppos- 
ing it  to  be  a  human  contrivance,  could  have  arisen  and 
prevailed  as  it  did.  The  religion  exists  ;  that  is  the 
phenomenon ;  those  who  will  not  allow  it  to  have  come 


186       THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

from  God  are  bound  to  solve  the  phenomenon  on  some 
other  hypothesis  less  open  to  objection ;  they  are  not 
indeed  called  upon  to  prove  that  it  actually  did  arise 
in  this  or  that  way,  but  to  suggest  (consistently  with 
acknowledged  facts)  some  probable  way  in  which  it 
may  have  arisen,  reconcilable  with  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case.  That  infidels  have  never  done  this, 
though  they  have  had  nearly  two  thousand  years  to  try, 
amounts  to  a  confession  that  no  such  hypothesis  can 
be  devised,  which  will  not  lie  open  to  greater  objections 
than  lie  against  Christianity." 

We  need  not  note  a  passing  sneer  at  Whately's 
"  candour  or  perspicacity "  in  assuming  that 
during  all  these  1800  years  the  human  mind  was 
in  a  position  to  devise  hypotheses  adverse  to 
Christianity,  because  Mr  Morison  tells  us  that 
the  only  important  point  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 
requisite  hypotheses  have  been  devised  since 
Whately  wrote. 

"  The  important  point  to  observe,"  he  says,  "  is  how 
completely  Whately's  assertion  that  a  rational  explana- 
tion of  the  origin  of  Christianity  has  never  been  given 
has,  by  the  Biblical  and  historical  studies  of  the  last 
half-century,  been  overthrown.  Strauss,  F.  Ch.  Baur, 
Keira,  and  Hausrath,  to  name  only  the  chief  writers, 
have  made  the  early  history  of  Christianity  at  least 
as  intelligible  as  other  scholars  have  made  the  early 
history  of  Rome." 

This  is  a  good  example  of  the  positive  asser- 
tions with  which  Mr  Morison  tries  to  overbear 


THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       187 

US  ;  but  it  happens  to  be  of  such  a  nature  that, 
to  any  one  really  acquainted  with  the  names  he 
mentions,  its  absurdity  is  patent.  "  Strauss,  F. 
Ch.  Baur,  Keim,  and  Hausrath,"  all  mentioned  in 
one  breath  as  having  united  to  make  the  human 
origin  of  Christianity  intelligible  !  No  doubt 
that  is  what  each  of  them  tried  to  do  ;  but  the 
best  proof  that  they  have"  failed  is  their  mere 
enumeration,  for  it  reminds  us  that  the  theory  of 
each  of  such  critics  has  in  turn  been  rejected  by 
his  successor  as  inadequate.  The  mention  of 
Strauss  in  particular,  as  having  made  the  early 
history  of  Christianity  intelligible,  is  incompre- 
hensible in  a  man  who  knows  anything  of  the 
other  writers  he  mentions  ;  for  Strauss's  theory, 
at  all  events,  is  by  those  writers  themselves  de- 
nounced as  untenable,  and  by  one  of  them  as 
even  ridiculous.  Thus  Keim,  in  his  '  History  of 
Jesus  for  General  Circles'  (Zurich,  1875),  says  at 
p.  21,  after  dwelling  on  the  historical  value  of 
St  Paul's  testimony,  that,  with  respect  to  several 
cardinal  points  of  our  Lord's  life,  it  affords  us, 
"in  the  main,  firm  ground,  historic  foundation, 
which  at  once  confounds  a  flat  denial,  and  shows 
the  precipitation  of  Strauss's  former  attempt  in 
1835  summarily  to  demolish  the  structure  of  the 
Gospels  and  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  to  dissolve  it 
into  a  mythology  to  be  scattered  to  the  four 


188       THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

winds."  Keim's  claim,  in  fact,  is  to  have  shown 
that  the  Gospels  contain  an  account  of  really 
historical  events,  to  be  explained  by  human  and 
historical  considerations.  Strauss's  claim  was  to 
have  destroyed  the  whole  historical  character  of 
the  Gospels,  by  evaporating  the  alleged  circum- 
stances in  the  life  of  our  Lord  into  mere  myths. 
Baur,  again,  complained  of  the  insufficiency  and 
unsoundness  of  this  criticism.  It  was,  he  urged, 
a  criticism  of  the  Gospel  history  without  a  criti- 
cism of  the  Gospels,  and  consequently  could  only 
lead  to  a  negative  result,  leaving  all  uncertain,  in 
the  undefined  boundary  between  the  historical 
and  the  mythical.  What  is  to  be  thought  of  a 
writer  who  classes  these  three  critics  together  as 
having  united  to  make  the  origin  of  Christianity 
intelligible?  But  perhaps  a  quotation  from  Haus- 
rath,  the  last  of  the  four  whom  Mr  Morison  men- 
tions, will  afi'ord  the  most  decisive  exposure  of  this 
display,  by  Mr  Morison  himself,  of  one  or  other 
of  the  two  faults  which  he  ascribes  to  Whately 
— ^want  of  "  candour  "  or  of  "  perspicacity."  In 
the  preface  to  the  second  edition  of  his  '  History 
of  the  New  Testament  Times'  (1873)  he  says  : — 

"  Although  holding  fast  by  this  stand  -  point  to- 
day, yet  we  are  far  from  denying  that  the  first  at- 
tempts at  a  purely  historical  treatment  of  the  origins 
of  our  religion  were  in  various  respects  unsatisfactory. 


THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON   CHRISTIANITY.       189 

"  It  is  well  known  in  how  grand  a  style  Ferdinand 
Christian  Baur  attempted  this  task  some  thirty  years 
ago.  Never  has  the  internal  criticism  of  historical 
sources  been  more  boldly  treated  than,  for  example,  in 
his  '  Church  History  of  the  First  Three  Centuries.' 
In  this  work  the  collected  literary  materials  were  sifted, 
and  its  position  allotted  to  every  part ;  and  thus  the 
old  ecclesiastical  history  became  pre-eminently  a  his- 
tory of  literature.  But  the  presentation  of  the  literary 
process  is  only  one  part  of  the  work  to  be  accomplished. 
Literary  monuments  are  always  only  a  casual  deposit  of 
historical  movements,  not  these  movements  themselves. 
Besides  the  contest  about  theological  conceptions  which 
presents  itself  more  especially  in  literature,  there  re- 
main rich  historical  materials,  which  had  little  interest 
for  Baur.  The  special  motive  power  of  Christianity 
was  not  its  theology,  but  the  strong  religious  and  moral 
impulse  which  proceeded  from  Jesus  Himself.  The 
rest  is  merely  local  and  individual,  and  much  was  de- 
veloped from  the  relations  of  the  young  Church  to  its 
century  and  the  State.  To  complete  on  this  side  the 
picture  of  theological  movements  which  Baur  has  so 
splendidly  drawn,  is  the  task  which  historic  theology 
has  inherited  from  the  mighty  dead.  An  attempt  to 
bring  out  the  historical  connection,  by  which  the  prim- 
itive Church  was  interwoven  with  its  age,  was  first 
undertaken  by  Eenan.  But  just  as  certainly  as  he  who 
needs  the  mechanical  impulse  of  miracle  as  an  explana- 
tion of  the  conquests  of  Christianity  over  the  powers  of 
its  age,  has  not  comprehended  its  internal  pre-eminence, 
so  neither  has  he  who  seeks  to  explain  that  great  move- 
ment by  any  of  the  childish  vehicles  used  by  Eenan. 
Various  kinds  of  idyllic  situations,  foolish  coincidences, 
innocent  deceits,  cannot  produce  a  new  conception  of 


190       THE   LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

life.  History,  more  especially  religious  history,  declines 
such  a  petty  derivation.  What  is  needed  is  rather 
such  a  comprehension  of  the  internal  pre-eminence  of 
Christianity  over  the  theories  and  tendencies  of  its  age, 
that  its  course  can  be  understood  without  recourse  to 
the  crutches  of  miracles  and  convenient  coincidences. 
Certainly  there  must  be  above  all  a  religious  under- 
standing, which  has  a  proper  sense  of  the  power  of  the 
factors  here  at  work.  When  an  irreligiousness,  which 
is  avowed  and  founded  on  principle,  undertakes  to 
write  'A  Life  of  Jesus,'  it  at  once  becomes  apparent 
that,  in  order  to  understand  a  founder  of  religion,  one 
•must  one's  self  be  religious  ;  just  as  much  as,  to  compose 
a  useful  history  of  music,  one  must  be  musical.  Only 
on  the  supposition  that  he  was  not  able  to  appreciate 
religious  forces,  can  we  explain  the  strange  judgment  of 
David  Strauss,  that  all  the  true  and  good  things  uttered 
by  Jesus  are  scarcely  worthy  of  regard  when  compared 
with  the  results  of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection,  so 
that,  historically  considered,  this  must  be  declared  to  be 
the  greatest  historic  humbug  that  ever  occurred.  But 
could  it  be  considered  historical  to  derive  a  revolution 
like  that  of  Christianity  from  an  illusion  ?  When  one 
theory  refutes  another,  it  is  because  it  rests  on  internal 
grounds ;  and  where  tliose  are  wanting,  neither  actual 
nor  invented  miracles  can  turn  the  course  of  the  world's 
history.  But  for  a  man  who  is  incapable  of  estimating 
the  power  of  religious  impulse,  all  the  mighty  revolu- 
tions in  the  world's  history  which  have  proceeded  from 
this  source  remain  unintelligible ;  and  because  he  sees 
a  movement,  without  being  able  to  recognise  its  motive 
power,  the  whole  process  appears  to  him  to  be  — 
humbug !  Such  a  conception  may  be  interesting,  but 
it  cannot  be  called  historic.'' 


THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       191 

Here,  in  a  single  passage  by  one  of  Mr  Mori- 
son's  own  witnesses,  are  four  of  these  writers,  by 
whose  united  labours  Whately's  difficulty  is  said 
to  have  been  solved,  shown  to  be  dissatisfied 
with  each  other,  and  the  latest  of  them  says  that 
the  first  was  lacking  in  the  religious  sense  indis- 
pensable for  his  task,  and  that  his  theory  may 
be  interesting  but  is  certainly  not  historical ! 
Baur's  theories,  of  which  Hausrath  acknowledges 
the  boldness,  while  asserting  their  insufficiency, 
are  now,  in  essential  points,  generally  abandoned 
in  Germany  itself.  Could  Whately  have  been 
more  amply  justified?  The  course  of  the  past 
fifty  years,  to  which  Mr  Morison  appeals,  would 
seem  in  fact  to  justify  us  in  stating  Whately's 
argument  still  more  strongly.  He  was  only  able 
to  say  that  infidels  had  never  given  any  satis- 
factory explanation  of  the  origin  of  Christianity 
on  purely  human  grounds.  Since  his  time  the 
vast  ingenuity  and  industry  of  German  scholars 
have  attacked  the  problem  with  concentrated 
energy,  and  each  new  writer  does  but  bear  testi- 
mony that  the  others  have  failed.  Considering 
the  resources  of  ability  and  learning  which  have 
thus  been  directed  to  this  object  without  ac- 
complishing it,  even  to  the  satisfaction  of  a 
favourable  audience,  we  may  feel  almost  justi- 
fied in  saying  not  only  that  the   attempt  has 


192       THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

not  been  successful,  but  that  its  impossibility 
has  been  practically  proved.  When  a  writer 
deals  with  so  cardinal  a  point  in  a  spirit  either 
so  careless  or  so  unscrupulous  as  Mr  Morison 
here  exhibits,  his  position  is  discredited  at  the 
outset.  The  statement  is  of  much  the  same 
character  as  if  a  political  writer  were  to  urge 
that  no  real  difficulty  is  presented  by  the  Irish 
problem,  as  the  mode  of  solving  it  has  been 
rendered  perfectly  intelligible  by  Mr  Gladstone, 
Lord  Beaconsfield,  Mr  Parnell,  and  Lord  Har- 
tington. 

There  is  a  still  more  momentous  subject  which 
is  dealt  with  in  this  chapter  with  a  similarly  ill- 
instructed  presumption ;  and  we  feel  the  more 
bound  to  notice  the  point  with  some  special 
attention,  because  Mr  Morison  is  in  this  case 
echoing  an  argument  which  has  perhaps  been 
allowed  too  long  to  go  unchallenged.  In  the 
'Nineteenth  Century'  for  January  1884,  Mr 
Herbert  Spencer  published  a  paper,  which  he 
has  since  reprinted  in  his  volume  on  '  Ecclesi- 
astical Institutions,'  under  the  title  of  a  "  Ee- 
ligious  Eetrospect  and  Prospect '' ;  and  this  paper 
contained  a  criticism  of  the  Christian  concep- 
tion of  God,  which  was  at  once  acclaimed  by 
another  sceptical  writer,  though  he  disputed  the 
general  conclusions  of  the  paper,  as  containing 


THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       193 

"the  last  word  of  modern  philosophy"  on  this 
great  conception.  Mr  Morison  similarly  quotes 
the  main  passage  in  Mr  Spencer's  argument  as 
exhibiting  intellectual  difficulties  which  are  suf- 
ficient to  extinguish  the  traditional  belief  in  a 
Supreme  Being,  and  above  all  in  "  the  admirable 
conception  of  the  Man  God,  Jesus  Christ."  The 
argument  may  be  very  briefly  stated,  so  far  as 
its  main  principle  is  concerned.  It  is  pointed 
out  that  every  faculty  of  human  nature  is  limited 
in  its  character  and  action  ;  that  our  intelligence, 
our  will,  our  consciousness,  are  all  subject  to 
unavoidable  conditions  of  succession,  of  space, 
and  of  time ;  and  that,  for  instance,  there  is  a 
logical  inconsistency  in  speaking  of  a  divine  con- 
sciousness, which,  instead  of  perceiving  things 
and  events  one  after  another,  as  our  own  does, 
sees  them  all  at  once.     Or  again — 

"  The  conception  of  a  divine  will,  derived  from  the 
human  will,  involves,  like  it,  localisation  in  space  and 
time ;  the  willing  of  each  end  excluding  from  con- 
sciousness, for  an  interval,  the  willing  of  other  ends, 
and  therefore  being  inconsistent  with  that  omnipresent 
activity  which  simultaneously  works  out  an  infinity  of 
ends." 

Or  again — 

"  Intelligence,  as  alone  conceivable  by  us,  pre- 
supposes existence  independent  of  us  and  objective  to 

N 


194      THE    LATEST    ATTACK   ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

it.  It  is  carried  on  in  terms  of  changes  primarily 
wrought  by  alien  activities,  .  .  .  and  to  speak  of  an 
intelligence  which  exists  in  the  absence  of  all  such 
alien  activities  is  to  use  a  meaningless  word.  .  .  . 
Hence  it  is  clear  that  the  intelligence  ascribed  answers 
in  no  respect  to  that  which  we  know  by  the  name. 
It  is  intelligence  out  of  which  all  the  characters 
constituting  it  have  vanished." 

St  John  says  that  "God  is  Love";  but  this, 
according  to  Mr  Spencer's  argument,  is  to  say 
that  He  is  the  subject  of  an  emotion  which  we 
only  know  in  a  finite  form,  and  which  is  thus 
inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  an  infinite  Being. 

Now  there  is  one  observation  which  a  book 
like  Mr  Morison's  renders  it  necessary  to  impress 
in  the  strongest  possible  manner  upon  all  who 
approach  such  discussions,  or  who  are  disturbed 
by  them.  It  is — to  speak  the  plain  truth  on  a 
subject  upon  which  it  is  wrong  to  speak  less 
than  the  truth — that  it  is  a  piece  of  pure  and 
inexcusable  ignorance  to  suppose,  as  Mr  Mori  son 
suggests,  that  these  difficulties  are  due  to  the 
recent  "  growth  of  knowledge,"  as  though  they 
had  been  discovered  and  stated  for  the  first  time 
by  these  modern  sceptics,  and  that  they  represent 
problems  before  which,  for  that  reason.  Christian 
theologians  must  stand  aghast.  Any  one  who 
is  familiar  with  the  history  of  philosophy  and 
theology  will  feel  as  if  he  were  being  carried 


THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       195 

back  to  the  questionings  of  babes  in  arguments 
of  this  kind,  and  that  his  opponents  are  becoming 
such  as  have  need  of  milk,  and  not  of  strong 
meat.  Why,  these  difficulties  and  problems 
have  been  confronted  by  every  philosophical 
theologian  who  has  ever  written ;  nay,  by  every 
profound  philosopher  of  the  ancient  world. 
They  are  the  first,  and  not  the  last,  words  of 
philosophy,  the  very  alphabet  of  theological 
science.  They  are  stated,  confronted,  and 
answered,  in  particular,  in  the  great  divines  of 
the  middle  ages,  with  a  clearness  and  a  pre- 
cision in  which  the  modern  statements  of  them 
are  conspicuously  lacking.  They  have  been 
considered,  moreover,  and  answered,  and  the 
answers  have  been  made  the  very  foundation 
of  philosophical  Christian  thought,  by  great 
modern  writers.  Besides  Dean  Mansel's  '  Bamp- 
ton  Lectures,'  which  are  more  quoted  than 
studied  by  those  who  disparage  or  misuse  them, 
the  problem  has  been  fully  discussed  in  a  well- 
known  and  valuable  treatise  on  the  knowledge 
of  God,  published  in  our  own  generation  by  a 
distinguished  French  divine.  Father  Gratry.^ 
There  is  something  which  may  well  provoke  a 

1  La  Connaissance  de  Dieu.  Par  A.  Gratry,  Pretre  de  I'Ora- 
toire,  Professeiir  de  Theologie  morale  a  la  Sorbonne.  Seventh 
edition.     Paris,  1864. 


196       THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON   CHRISTIANITY. 

just  indignation  in  the  manner  in  which  men 
endeavour  to  scatter  doubts  abroad  respecting 
the  truths  of  the  greatest  and  most  beneficent 
religion  ever  known  to  mankind,  without 
giving  themselves  the  trouble  of  answering,  or 
apparently  of  so  much  as  reading,  the  great 
writers  by  whom  those  doubts  have  been  con- 
sidered, and  in  whose  works  the  philosophical 
principles  of  our  faith  have  been  discussed  with 
a  rigour  sadly  wanting  in  most  modern  dis- 
putation. There  is,  in  fact,  something,  on  the 
face  of  it,  ridiculous  in  men  waving  out  of 
court,  as  disposed  of  by  a  few  pages  of  a 
modern  philosopher,  beliefs  and  philosophical 
convictions  which  have  been  those,  not  only  of 
Apostles,  but  of  a  Plato,  an  Augustine,  an 
Anselm,  a  Newton,  and  a  Coleridge.  There 
must  be  more  in  beliefs  held  by  such  men 
than  these  sceptics  allow ;  and  until  they  can 
understand  and  admit  that  there  is,  they  do 
not  really  deserve,  for  their  own  sake,  to  be 
answered. 

But  for  the  sake  of  others  whom  they  perplex 
with  this  ''  philosophy  falsely  so  called,"  we 
must  endeavour  to  point  out,  as  may  be  done 
in  principle  with  some  brevity,  the  essential 
fallacy  of  such  objections.     Mr  Spencer  and  Mr 


THE   LATEST   ATTACK   ON   CHRISTIANITY.       197 

Morison  say  that  to  attribute  to  God  faculties 
of  that  finite  character  which  we  observe  in 
ourselves,  and  at  the  same  time  to  regard  Him 
as  a  perfect  and  eternal  Being,  involves  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms.  Of  course  it  does.  But 
what  writer  in  the  Scriptures,  or  what  Christian 
theologian  of  any  eminence,  ever  for  a  moment 
attributed  to  Him  faculties  like  in  all  respects 
to  our  own  ?  and  above  all,  what  Christian 
philosopher  ever  forgot  that  they  cannot  be 
attributed  to  Him  in  their  finite  form?  Why, 
it  is  the  very  assertion  of  Christian  theology,  as 
of  the  Scriptures  throughout,  that  the  qualities 
and  characteristics  which  we  ascribe  to  God,  as 
resembling  our  own,  are  essentially  distinguished 
from  them  in  the  infinite  expansion  which  they 
receive  in  the  divine  nature.  Take  a  char- 
acteristic passage  from  the  prophet  Isaiah  : 
"  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  He  may  be  found, 
call  ye  upon  Him  while  He  is  near :  let  the 
wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  unrighteous 
man  his  thoughts,  and  let  him  return  unto  the 
Lord,  and  He  will  have  mercy  upon  him ;  and 
to  our  God,  for  He  will  abundantly  pardon." 
There,  in  the  most  touching  and  most  human 
expressions,  are  attributed  to  God  those  anthro- 
pomorphic   characteristics    which    our    modern 


198      THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

Agnostics  denounce ;  but  does  the  prophet,  for 
that  reason,  suppose  that  the  divine  nature  is  to 
be  measured  by  our  own,  or  that  its  thoughts  and 
actions  are  comprehensible  by  us  ?  On  the  con- 
trary, he  immediately  adds:  "For  my  thoughts 
are  not  your  thoughts,  neither  are  your  ways 
my  ways,  saith  the  Lord.  For  as  the  heavens 
are  higher  than  the  earth,  so  are  my  ways 
higher  than  your  ways,  and  my  thoughts  than 
your  thoughts."  The  prophet  believed,  in  a 
word,  that  characteristics  and  attributes  similar 
to  our  own  might  exist,  and  in  God  did  exist, 
in  an  infinite  development — a  development  so 
infinite  as  to  remove  them  from  the  sphere  of 
our  comprehension  as  much  as  the  heaven  is 
higher  than  the  earth,  but  yet  without  dis- 
turbing their  real  similarity  and  kinship  with 
our  own  nature.  That  is  the  question  at  issue, 
— not  whether  Christian  theologians  have  been 
foolish  enough  to  contend  that  the  divine  in- 
telligence, the  divine  will,  and  the  divine 
causation  are  but  highly  magnified  forms  of 
our  own,  but  whether  they  are  infinitely  greater 
than  our  own,  and  yet  retain  a  real  analogy 
to  them.  It  is  eminently  characteristic  of  the 
carelessness  and  inconsecutiveness  which  fre- 
quently mark  Mr  Herbert  Spencer's  writing, 
that  he  himself  proceeds   to   illustrate  and  to 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       199 

justify  this  very  method  of  thought  and  argu- 
ment.    He  concludes^  that 

"  these  and  other  difficulties,  some  of  which  are 
often  discussed  but  never  disposed  of,  must  force  men 
hereafter  to  drop  the  higher  anthropomorphic  charac- 
ters given  to  the  First  Cause,  as  they  have  long  since 
dropped  the  lower.  The  conception  which  has  been 
enlarging  from  the  beginning  must  go  on  enlarging; 
until,  by  disappearance  of  its  limits,  it  becomes  a 
consciousness  which  transcends  the  forms  of  distinct 
thought,  though  it  always  remains  a  consciousness." 

We  do  not  know  what  may  be  implied  in  the 
qualification  "distinct"  thought;  but  it  is  obvi- 
ous that  if  a  conception  remains  a  consciousness, 
it  remains  a  subject  of  thought ;  and  bearing 
this  in  mind,  it  is  the  strangest  part  of  this 
uninstructed  attack  on  the  elements  of  our  faith 
that  in  this  statement  Mr  Spencer  has  simply 
expressed  the  very  method  by  which  the  greatest 
divines  have  taught  that  our  partial  apprehension 
of  the  divine  nature  is  attained.  Thus  St  Thomas 
Aquinas  argues  that,  in  attempting  to  attain 
some  knowledge  of  Grod,  it  is  necessary  to  use 
the  method  of  "  removal " — via  remotionis : — 

"  The  divine  substance,"  he  says,^  "  transcends  in  its 
immensity  every  form  which  our  intellect  attains,  and 
thus  we  cannot  apprehend  Him  by  knowing  what  He 


1  Ecclesiastical  Institutions,  p.  837. 
^  Summa  PhilosopMca,  i.  14. 


200       THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

is,  but  we  can  obtain  some  knowledge  of  Him  by 
knowing  what  He  is  not.  For  we  approach  so  much 
nearer  to  a  knowledge  of  Him,  in  proportion  as  we  are 
able  by  our  understanding  to  remove  more  and  more 
from  Him." 

Thus,  he  goes  on  to  explain,  we  remove  from 
His  nature  one  after  another  of  the  limits  by 
which  our  own  is  circumscribed,  and  He  is  dis- 
tinguished from  us  by  this  very  denial  of  our 
own  limitations.  The  negative  terms,  in  fact, 
by  which — as,  for  instance,  in  the  first  of  our 
Thirty-nine  Articles — God  is  described,  exactly 
answer  to  that  disappearance,  or  removal,  of 
limits  on  which  Mr  Spencer  insists.  The  article 
states  that  He  is  without  body,  without  parts, 
without  passions  —  incorporeus,  impartibilis, 
impassihilis.  But  these  apparently  negative 
expressions  are  really  affirmatives,  for  they  are 
the  denial  of  all  limitations.  They  are  assertions 
that  faculties,  emotions,  intelligences,  which  in 
us  are  limited,  are  in  the  divine  nature  expanded 
to  an  infinite  degree,  and  united  in  an  infinite 
perfection.  So,  again,  the  case  is  simply  and 
clearly  stated  by  Bishop  Beveridge,  in  his  treatise 
on  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  ^ : — 

"  When  we  poor  finite  creatures  set  ourselves  to 
consider  of  our  infinite  Creator,  though  we  may  appre- 


^  Works,  vol.  vii.  p.  24. 


THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHEISTIANITY.       201 

hend  something  of  Him  by  ascribing  all  perfections  to 
Him,  yet  more  by  removing  all  imperfections  from 
Him.  We  cannot  so  well  apprehend  what  He  is,  as 
what  He  is  not.  We  can  say  indeed  He  is  infinitely 
good,  inj&nitely  wise,  in  and  of  Himself,  eternal  and 
all-sufficient ;  but,  alas !  when  we  speak  such  words, 
we  cannot  apprehend  the  thing  that  is  signified  by 
them.  Our  understandings  being  themselves  finite, 
they  cannot  apprehend  what  it  is  to  be  infinite,  and 
as  they  are  imperfect,  they  cannot  conceive  of  any 
perfection,  as  it  is  in  God.  But  now  of  imperfections 
we  have  the  daily  experience  in  ourselves,  and  there- 
fore know  the  better  how  to  abstract  them  all  from 
our  apprehensions  of  the  Deity ;  and  so  the  clearest 
apprehensions  that  we  can  have  of  Him  is  by  remov- 
ing imperfections  from  Him.  I  cannot  conceive  it, 
though  I  verily  believe  it,  how  He  is  of  Himself 
infinitely  holy,  just,  and  powerful ;  yet  I  can  easily 
conceive  how  He  is  without  body,  parts,  and  passions ; 
that  He  is  not  such  a  one  as  I  am,  who  have  a  body, 
am  compounded  of  parts,  and  am  subject  to  passions : 
but  whatsoever  He  is  in  Himself,  be  sure  he  is  infinitely 
above  such  imperfections  as  these  are." 

It  may  be  worth  while  also  to  quote  from 
Father  Gratry  a  short  passage  which  states 
very  clearly  and  summarily  the  character  of  the 
Christian  argument  on  this  subject,  and  in  which, 
moreover,  he  indicates  very  justly  its  harmony 
with  the  highest  form  of  mathematical  reasoning. 
He  says  (vol.  i.  p.  63)  : — 

"  Ce   precede,   qui   en   geometric   s'eleve    a    I'infini 


202       THE   LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

mathematique,  s'el^ve  aussi,  en  metaphysique,  a  I'etre 
infini  qui  est  Dieu.  Eigoiireux  comme  la  geometrie, 
il  est  en  outre  de  beaucoup  le  plus  simple  et  le  plus 
rapicle  des  deux  precedes  de  la  raison  [syllogism  and 
induction].  Sa  simplicite  meme  et  sa  rapidite  en  ont 
jusqu'ici  empech^  I'analyse  complete. 

"  II  consiste,  etant  donne  par  I'expMence  un  degre 
quelconque  d'etre,  de  beaute,  de  perfection  ...  a 
effacer  immediatement,  par  la  pensee,  les  limites  de 
I'etre  borne  et  des  qualit^s  imparfaites  qu'on  possede 
ou  qu'on  voit,  pour  affirmer,  sans  aucun  inter mediaire, 
Texistence  infinie  de  I'Etre  et  de  ses  perfections  cor- 
respondantes  a  celles  qu'on  voit. 

"  Assur^ment  ce  procede  est  simple ;  chacun  pent 
I'employer,  et  les  moindres  esprits,  sur  certains  points, 
y  vont  aussi  vite  que  les  autres;  mais  il  est  rigoureux. 
C'est  ce  qui  est  aujourd'hui  demontr^  par  les  travaux 
du  XVII®  siecle,  analysers  et  compares." 

Without  knowing  it,  then,  Mr  Spencer  has 
asserted,  in  his  endeavour  to  disparage  the  con- 
clusions and  the  methods  of  Christian  Theology, 
the  very  method,  and  one  of  the  elementary 
results,  which  that  theology  has  always  upheld. 
The  real  question  is  whether  it  is  impossible  to 
believe  that  the  realities  of  which  there  is  a 
finite  manifestation  in  ourselves  can  exist  in  a 
Supreme  Being,  in  an  infinite  degree,  without 
all  analogy  between  our  nature  and  His  being 
destroyed ;  and,  strange  to  say  again,  this  very 
question  is  decided,  and  practically  answered  in 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       203 

the  affirmative,  by  the  same  confident  critic. 
In  the  very  paper  from  which  we  are  quoting,  Mr 
Spencer  says  that  "  the  final  outcome  of  that 
speculation  commenced  by  the  primitive  man, 
is  that  the  Power  manifested  throughout  the 
universe  distinguished  as  material,  is  the  same 
Power  which  in  ourselves  wells  up  under  the  form 
of  consciousness."  He  maintains,  accordingly, 
that  there  was  a  germ  of  truth  in  the  rudimen- 
tary religious  conceptions  of  his  imaginary  savage, 
who  worshipped  his  ancestors ;  and  that  conse- 
quently "  the  ultimate  form  of  the  religious 
consciousness  is  the  final  development  of  a 
consciousness  which  at  the  outset  contained  a 
germ  of  truth  obscured  by  multitudinous  errors." 
ISTow  when,  after  a  denial  that  there  is  any  jus- 
tification for  ascribing  to  God  powers  similar  to 
those  which  we  feel  in  ourselves,  we  are  told 
that,  after  all,  the  Power  manifested  throughout 
the  universe  is  the  same  Power  as  presents  itself 
in  our  own  consciousness,  and  in  conclusion, 
that  "amid  the  mysteries  which  become  the 
more  mysterious  the  more  they  are  thought 
about,  there  will  remain  the  one  absolute  cer- 
tainty that  we  are  ever  in  the  presence  of  an 
Infinite  and  Eternal  Energy  from  which  all 
things  proceed,"  it  seems  obvious  to  ask  whether 
this  supposed  confutation  of  Christian  belief  re- 


204       THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

specting  the  nature  of  God  has  not  really  ad- 
mitted and  asserted  the  primary  philosophical 
principles  on  which  that  belief  rests.  Why 
should  it  be  logical  and  philosophical  to  speak 
of  "  an  Infinite  and  Eternal  Energy  from  which 
all  things  proceed,"  and  absurd  and  illogical  to 
speak  of  an  Infinite  and  Eternal  Love  from 
which  all  things  proceed?  Energy  is  a  human 
conception  as  much  as  love ;  and  if  the  last  re- 
sult of  Agnostic  philosophy  is  that  there  remains 
the  one  absolute  certainty  that  we  are  in  the 
presence  of  an  Eternal  Energy,  the  last  word  of 
modern  philosophy  is  an  assertion  that  its  con- 
clusions were  anticipated  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
nowhere  more  so  than  in  the  great  statement 
of  St  John.  Or  what,  again,  can  be  more  illog- 
ical than  to  pronounce  it  an  "absolute  certainty" 
that  we  are  in  the  presence  of  an  Infinite  Energy 
from  which  all  things  proceed,  and  yet  that  the 
things  which  thus  proceed  from  that  Energy 
give  us  no  conception  of  its  character?  St 
John  similarly  asserts  that  we  are  in  the  pres- 
ence of  an  Infinite  Energy;  but  he  draws  the 
plain  and  common- sense  conclusion,  which  the 
human  heart  has  ever  drawn,  that  the  nature 
of  that  Energy  is  revealed  in  its  action,  and 
that,  whatever  it  may  be  in  itself — a  matter 
with  which  we  have  but   little   concern — it   is 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       205 

an  energy  of  power,  of  wisdom,  and  of  goodness. 
It  is  an  energy  of  righteousness,  of  truth,  and 
of  love,  raised  to  an  infinite  degree  of  force,  but 
still  righteous,  true,  and  loving ;  and  our  priv- 
ilege is  to  partake  of  those  energies,  and  enter 
into  communion  with  them  in  their  highest 
form.  Physical  science  teaches  us  that  the  same 
elements,  which  are  the  life  of  the  globe  on 
which  we  live,  exist  also  in  the  sun,  but  in  a 
state  of  activity  so  intense  and  overwhelming 
as  to  be  beyond  our  utmost  conceptions.  Simi- 
larly, another  apostle  declares  that  "  our  God 
is  a  consuming  fire."  All  that  love,  all  that 
justice,  all  that  light,  which  in  a  comparatively 
gentle  and  obscure  form  make  the  elements  of 
our  life  here,  exist  in  Him  in  a  condition  of  the 
most  infinite  and  overwhelming  force. 

Of  course  we  are  not  assuming  that  the  con- 
siderations thus  recalled  to  the  reader's  attention 
are  sufiicient,  as  thus  stated,  to  decide  the  great 
question  at  issue  between  Christians  and  Agnos- 
tics. To  deal  with  that  question  fully  would 
require  not  an  article,  but  a  number,  of  the 
'  Quarterly  Eeview.'  But  such  considerations  are 
more  than  sufiicient  to  rebut  the  assumption  so 
lightly  made  by  Mr  Morison,  that  Mr  Herbert 
Spencer's  crude  observations  represent  a  dis- 
covery, due  to  the  growth  of  knowledge,  which 


206       THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHEISTIANITY. 

is  fatal  to  the  claims  of  Christian  faith.  It  will 
be  seen  that  these  philosophical  spectres  have 
been  faced  by  every  theologian  or  philosopher  of 
importance  from  the  dawn  of  theological  science 
to  the  present  time,  and  that  a  Christian,  when 
he  is  confronted  with  them,  may  well  adopt 
Coleridge's  reply  to  the  lady  who  asked  him  if  he 
believed  in  ghosts,  *'No,  madam,  I  have  seen  too 
many  of  them."  The  problems  thus  presented 
to  our  thought  are  very  serious,  as  are  most 
philosophical  problems ;  but  they  have  been 
fully  considered,  and  some  of  the  greatest  minds 
which  have  ever  existed  have  deemed  the  Chris- 
tian solution  of  them  the  true  one.  Let  them  be 
reconsidered,  by  all  means,  if  modern  philosophers 
desire  it.  Christian  theologians  have  no  objec- 
tion to  free  discussion.  It  is  the  very  air  they 
breathe,  and  it  has  been  the  life  of  Christian 
truth.  But  do  not  let  it  be  assumed  that  to  state 
difficulties,  howevei?  serious,  is  enough  to  show 
that  they  cannot  be  answered ;  especially  when 
they  are  difficulties  which  are  familiar  to  every 
competent  student  of  the  subject,  and  to  which 
answers  have  been  given  again  and  again.  We 
shall  presently  find  Mr  Cotter  Morison  admitting 
the  immense  force  and  vitality  of  Christian 
thought.  In  the  theological  discussions  of  the 
fourth  century,  he  says,  "  all  the  faculties  of  the 


THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       207 

reason  and  logical  understanding  were  brought 
into  play,  subtlety  the  most  acute,  and  discourse 
of  reason  the  most  lofty."  We  are  only  concerned 
at  present  to  express  the  humble  opinion,  that 
doctrines  which  have  thus  been  subjected  to  the 
test  of  "  all  the  faculties  of  the  reason  and  logical 
understanding,"  "  of  subtlety  the  most  acute  and 
discourse  of  reason  the  most  lofty,"  are  not  con- 
clusively disposed  of  by  a  quotation  of  three  pages 
from  Mr  Herbert  Spencer. 

We  have  a  few  more  words  to  add  with  respect 
to  this  characteristic  attempt  at  scientific  and 
philosophical  bullying.  Mr  Morison  endeavours 
to  make  a  great  point  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  views  of  theologians  have  had  to  be  accommo- 
dated, from  time  to  time,  to  the  facts  forced  on 
them  by  the  continual  advance  of  science. 

"  Geology,"  he  says,  "  seems  to  contradict  Genesis  in 
a  very  direct  and  final  way.  '  That  is  all  your  mis- 
take/ says  Theology,  '  Geology  and  Genesis  are  in 
most  perfect  union ;  in  fact  the  science  confirms  the 
Scripture  so  wonderfully,  that  each  reflects  light  on 
the  other.'  The  fact  that  the  Geology  thus  warmly 
accepted  now  was  once  resisted  with  energy  and  anger 
as  an  impious  and  futile  science,  is  passed  over.  New 
light  as  to  its  harmony  with  Scripture  was  not  noticed 
until  it  had  obtained  a  position  of  power  which  made 
it  more  desirable  as  a  friend  than  as  a  foe.  The  fact 
is  suggestive." 


208       THE   LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

Suggestive,  no  doubt ;  but  of  what  ?  To  us  it 
is  suggestive  simply  of  the  truth  that  theological 
science,  like  all  other  science,  is  progressive,  and 
that  its  progress  is  aided  by  that  of  the  other 
sciences.  If  it  has  for  a  time  shrunk  from  the 
new  light  and  repelled  it,  precisely  the  same 
may  be  said  of  science.  Even  Lord  Bacon,  more 
than  half  a  century  after  the  death  of  Coper- 
nicus, ridicules  his  grand  discovery  as  the 
dream  of  "  those  few  carmen  who  drive  the 
earth  about.''  If  old  theological  opinions  have 
had  to  be  modified  to  meet  the  discoveries 
of  science,  it  is  no  more  than  has  happened 
to  science  itself,  as  Mr  Morison  himself  bears 
testimony. 

"  In  the  history  of  science,"  he  says  (p.  6),  "  it  has 
often  happened  that  a  newly  discovered  truth  has 
proved  inconsistent  with  prevalent  opinions,  which 
had  the  sanction  of  tradition  in  their  favour.  But  the 
position  has  always  been  felt  to  be  intolerable,  and 
that  one  of  two  things  must  happen — either  the  new 
truth  must  reconcile  itself  with  the  old  opinions  by 
the  necessary  modification ;  or  the  old  opinions  must 
reconcile  themselves  with  the  new  truth  by  a  similar 
process.  In  astronomy  the  heliocentric  theory,  and 
in  biology  the  circulation  of  the  blood  theory,  produced 
the  latter  result,  and  revolutionised  those  two  sciences 
by  expelling  a  number  of  previously  unsuspected 
errors.  In  modern  times,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
plausible  theory  of  spontaneous  generation  has  been 


THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON   CHRISTIANITY.       209 

forced  to  beat  a  retreat  through  its  proven  inconsist- 
ency with  older  truths  firmly  established." 

But  this  process  of  "  necessary  modification  " 
of  old  opinions  is  precisely  what  has  taken  efiect 
in  theological  thought  respecting  the  relation  be- 
tween Genesis  and  Geology.  If  it  is  a  scientific 
and  laudable  process  in  the  one  case,  why  should 
it  be  a  matter  of  reproach  in  the  other  ?  Every 
true  theologian  heartily  subscribes  to  Butlers 
vigorous  declaration,  "  Let  reason  be  kept  to  ; 
and  if  any  part  of  the  Scripture  account  of  the 
redemption  of  the  world  by  Christ  can  be  shown 
to  be  really  contrary  to  it,  let  the  Scripture,  in 
the  name  of  God,  be  given  up."  We  must  add, 
however,  the  caution  which  follows  these  words, 
as  a  sufiicient  demurrer  to  various  objections 
urged  by  Mr  Morison  against  points  of  detail  in 
the  relation  of  science  and  theology,  particularly 
in  respject  to  the  argument  from  design  :  "  but 
let  not  such  poor  creatures  as  we  go  on  objecting 
against  an  infinite  scheme,  that  we  do  not  see  the 
necessity  or  usefulness  of  all  its  parts,  and  call 
this  reasoning." 

Such  is  the  value  of  the  series  of  arguments 
and  considerations  which  Mr  Morison  lays  at 
the  foundation  of  his  attack  on  our  faith,  and 
which,  in  his  opinion,  ''  might  seem  sufiicient  to 

0 


210      THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHEISTIANITY. 

bring  about  a  rapid  extinction  of  the  vulgar 
belief."  We  have  dwelt  on  two  or  three  cardi- 
nal and  characteristic  points,  passing  over  such 
hackneyed  topics  as  the  credibility  of  miracles, 
and  we  would  ask  whether  a  contemptuous  attack 
on  a  great  religion  could  be  less  justified  by  the 
learning  and  thought  on  which  it  is  based,  or  by 
the  temper  with  which  it  is  animated  ?  It  might 
well  be  deemed  unnecessary,  in  point  of  argu- 
ment, to  follow  Mr  Morison  any  further.  He 
might  be  said,  in  parliamentary  phrase,  to  have 
totally  failed  to  prove  his  preamble.  He  recog- 
nises, however,  that  such  difficulties  have  not 
been  sufficient  to  detach  ''the  mass  of  English- 
men "  from  Christianity,  and  that  "  the  land 
which  has  done  most  to  work  out  the  philosophy 
of  Evolution,  is  perhaps  still  the  most  Christian 
in  faith  and  practice  remaining  in  the  world." 
He  asks  the  reason  of  what  seems  to  him  so  strange 
a  phenomenon,  and  finds  it  in  such  considerations 
as  the  following  : — 

"  Though  perhaps  the  chief,  the  yearning  for  divine 
sympathy  is  not  the  only  ground  of  men's  hesitation 
to  follow  the  guidance  of  intellect  in  this  matter.  The 
idea  still  prevails  that  Christianity  is,  after  all,  the 
best  support  of  morality  extant.  What  system  of 
ethics,  it  is  asked,  can  compare  with  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  ?  There  are  even  some  who  hold  that 
paradise  and  hell  can  ill  be  spared ;  the  one  as  incen- 


THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       211 

tive  to  good,  the  other  as  a  deterrent  from  evil.  How 
can  you  expect,  it  is  inquired,  self-sacrifice,  devotion 
to  duty,  if  man  is  to  die  the  death  of  a  dog,  and  to 
look  for  no  hereafter  ?  It  is  assumed  as  obvious  to 
common-sense  that  in  that  case  we  shall  eat  and 
drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die.  .  .  .  Take  away  the 
mingled  fear  and  hope  of  a  future  state  of  rewards 
and  punishments,  and  what  possible  check  can  be 
imagined  to  the  universal  indulgence  of  unbridled 
desires?" — Pp.  54,  55. 

These  undoubtedly  are  among  the  most  potent 
reasons  why  Christianity  retains  its  power  over 
a  thoughtful  and  earnest  people.  Its  ultimate 
foundation,  of  course,  is  the  simple  fact  that  it 
is  true  ;  but  many  who  are  unable  to  examine 
scientifically  its  claims  to  belief,  are  swayed  by 
their  belief  in  its  moral  influence,  and  by  the 
satisfaction  it  offers  to  the  deepest  cravings  of 
the  heart.  Mr  Morison  accordingly  sets  him- 
self to  what  we  should  have  thought  would  have 
been,  to  any  man  of  culture,  the  ungrateful  task 
of  stripping  Christianity  of  its  alleged  consola- 
tions, and,  above  all,  of  representing  it  as  essen- 
tially hostile  to  morality.  We  must,  indeed, 
charitably  suppose  that  the  task  was  really  more 
ungratefid  to  Mr  Morison  than  would  at  first 
appear,  and  that  it  is  because  he  is  to  a  great 
extent  arguing  against  his  own  better  nature  and 
his  own  literary,  if  not  moral,  conscience  that, 


212       THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON   CHRISTIANITY. 

in  the  chapters  on  the  "Alleged  Consolations  of 
the  Christian  Religion,"  on  "  Christianity  and 
Morals,"  and  on  "Morality  in  the  Ages  of 
Faith,"  he  displays  a  bitterness  and  unscrupu- 
lousness  which,  as  a  mere  man  of  letters,  we 
should  have  thought  he  would  have  been 
ashamed  of.  His  inconsistency,  indeed,  as  we 
shall  have  further  occasion  to  observe,  is  amaz- 
ing.    He  tells  us,  later  on,  that 

"  It  is  in  the  action  of  Christian  doctrine  on  the 
human  spirit  that  we  see  its  power  in  the  highest  and 
most  characteristic  form.  N"eutral  or  injurious  in 
politics,  favourably  stimulating  in  the  region  of  specu- 
lative thought,  its  influence  on  the  spiritual  side  of 
characters,  naturally  susceptible  to  its  action,  has  been 
transcendent,  overpowering,  and  unparalleled." 

Yet  this  is  the  religion  against  which  he  en- 
deavours to  substantiate  the  disgraceful  charge, 
"  that  the  doctrine  of  all  Christians  in  the  final 
result  is  antinomian  and  positively  immoral. 
They  do  not  only  not  support  and  strengthen 
morality  as  they  claim  to  do ;  they  deliberately 
reject  and  scorn  it."  Could  a  wilder  paradox  be 
maintained  than  that  a  religion  should  exert 
a  transcendent  and  unparalleled  influence  in 
elevating  and  sustaining  natures  of  the  highest 
moral  sensitiveness,  and  yet  that  its  doctrine 
should  be  positively  immoral  ?      It  is  difficult 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON   CHRISTIANITY.       213 

not  to  believe  that  in  these  defamatory  chapters 
Mr  Morison  is  wrestling  unconsciously  with  his 
own  deeper  convictions,  and  is  thus  betrayed 
into  the  extravagances  and  injustices  which  we 
shall  have  to  expose. 

We  do  not  think  it  worth  while  to  be  at  much 
pains  to  refute  the  perversities  of  the  chapter  on 
the  "Alleged  Consolations  of  the  Christian  Ke- 
ligion."  Its  professed  object  is  to  inquire  whether 
religion  has  really  been  in  the  past  the  solace 
and  consolation  which  are  asserted  ;  but  its 
method  is  to  leave  out  almost  entirely  the  con- 
sideration of  its  consolations,  and  to  depict  all 
the  anxieties,  fears,  and  sorrows  which  are  apt, 
especially  at  the  outset,  to  accompany  deep  re- 
ligious apprehensions.  We  willingly  make  Mr 
Morison  a  present  of  all  these  descriptions  of 
moral  and  spiritual  distress — even  of  his  exag- 
gerations of  the  teaching  of  Calvinistic  theology. 
There  is,  indeed,  something  palpably  absurd  in 
his  extravagant  language  respecting  Calvinism. 
He  speaks  of  "the  breaking  out  of  those  two 
dreadful  pestilences,  Scotch  Calvinism  and 
French  Terrorism.  While  they  prevailed  in 
their  greatest  virulence,  the  minds  of  men  were 
deformed  and  made  hideous,  as  their  bodies 
might  be  by  smallpox  or  elephantiasis  ;  "  and  in 
another  place  he  speaks  of  "the  revolting  devil- 


214      THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

worship  which  once  passed  under  the  name  of 
Christianity  in  Scotland,  and,  what  is  more, 
really  was  Christianity,  Gospel- truth,  supported 
by  texts,  at  every  point  taken  from  Scripture." 
This  is  mere  abuse  at  random.  If  "  devil-wor- 
ship" really  was  Christianity,  then  it  is  devil- 
worship  which  exerted  those  transcendent  and 
elevating  influences  over  the  human  spirit  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  Mr  Morison  ascribes  to  it ;  and 
it  is  notorious  that  these  transcendent  influences 
have  been  as  beautifully  exhibited  in  the  char- 
acters of  Scottish  Calvin ists  as  in  any  other 
Church.  If  a  religious  system  is  to  be  estimated 
by  the  general  type  of  character  it  has  produced, 
the  Scotsmen  of  the  last  two  or  three  genera- 
tions are  the  best  answer  to  Mr  Morison's  abuse 
of  their  religious  training.  We  fully  agree  that 
the  Calvinistic  system  presents  injurious  distor- 
tions of  some  important  points  of  Christian  doc- 
trine. But  it  has  also  asserted  other  essential 
truths  of  the  Christian  faith  with  admirable  force 
and  clearness ;  and  its  moral  discipline  has  de- 
veloped in  a  remarkable  degree  a  God-fearing, 
self- controlled,  and  dutiful  type  of  character. 
Even  the  violent  descriptions  of  the  divine  judg- 
ments which  Mr  Morison  quotes  from  Boston  on 
'  Human  Nature '  are  but  a  form  of  that  appre- 
hension of  the  inexorable  character  of  the  laws 


THE   LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       215 

of  truth  and  righteousness  which  contributed 
much  of  their  force  to  Carlyle's  best  writings. 
But  allow  that  religion  has  all  these  terrors, 
what  then  ?  The  point  of  the  argument  lies  in 
a  question  which  Mr  Morison  does  not  consider 
— the  question  whether  such  terrors  and  sorrows 
are  not  overbalanced  by  the  moral  and  spiritual 
happiness  which  follows.  If  they  are — if,  even 
in  the  worst  form,  they  are  but  the  means  by 
which  such  happiness  is  to  be  won — an  argument 
which  would  disparage  religion  on  account  of  them 
is  one  of  mere  cowardice.  "  A  woman  when 
she  is  in  travail  hath  sorrow,  because  her  hour 
is  come  :  but  as  soon  as  she  is  delivered  of  the 
child,  she  remembereth  no  more  the  anguish,  for 
joy  that  a  man  is  born  into  the  world."  In  pro- 
portion as  the  struggles  of  deeply  religious  minds 
are  but  the  travail-pangs  of  a  new  birth  into  a 
moral  and  spiritual  paradise,  to  shrink  from  them 
exhibits  a  weakness,  which  it  would  be  an  insult 
to  women  to  call  effeminacy.  Mr  Morison,  in- 
deed, shows  in  another  place  that  he  knows 
better  than  his  argument  in  this  place  implies — 
as,  in  fact,  he  is  continually  answering  himself. 
At  the  end  of  the  book,  to  justify  his  own  theory 
of  the  possibility  of  dispensing  with  rewards  and 
punishments,  he  has  to  argue  that  the  disappoint- 
ments and  the  sufferings  which  often  accompany 


216       THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

virtue  are  no  real   deterrent  from  it  to  noble 
minds  : — 

"  We  have  to  notice  that  the  gratification  of  all  the 
passions  is  more  or  less  attended  with  pain.  Indeed, 
it  would  seem  that  all  intense  pleasures  need  to  be 
tipped  with  a  sharp  point  of  pain  to  give  them  their 
full  zest.  ...  A  passion  for  virtue,  therefore,  is  not 
found  to  be  at  any  disadvantage  as  compared  with 
other  passions,  in  the  occasional  pain  which  its  gratifi- 
cation involves.  If  '  il  faut  souffrir  pour  etre  belle,'  it 
is  also  true  that  '  il  faut  souffrir  pour  etre  bon.'  " — Pp. 
316,  317. 

Precisely  so ;  but  this  being  the  case,  what  is 
the  relevance  of  all  the  quotations  in  the  pre- 
vious chapter  from  Jeremy  Taylor,  Bunyan,  Pas- 
cal, and  Cardinal  Wiseman,  to  show  that  the 
pursuit  of  religious  excellence  is  not  without  its 
pains  and  even  agonies  ?  Mr  Morison  quotes  a 
passage  from  Bunyan's  '  Grace  Abounding,'  in 
which  he  describes  his  miseries  when  suffering 
under  the  apprehension  of  his  sins  and  God's 
judgments.  But  nothing  is  said  of  the  '  Pil- 
grim's Progress,'  in  which  the  peace  is  described 
to  which  these  struggles  led ;  and  Mr  Morison 
must  know  very  well  what  Bunyan's  answer 
would  have  been  if  he  had  been  asked  whether 
the  result  was  worth  the  cost. 

But  the  most  astonishing  part  of  this  argu- 
ment  has  yet   to   be   mentioned.      If  there   is 


THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON   CHRISTIANITY.       217 

one  consolation  specially  characteristic  of  Chris- 
tianity, it  is  the  assurance  it  has  given  of  life 
and  immortality  hereafter,  and  of  an  abundant 
reward  in  heaven  for  any  sufferings  here  endured 
in  submission  to  the  divine  will.  "  Eejoice," 
said  our  Lord,  "  and  be  exceeding  glad,  for  great 
is  your  reward  in  heaven."  But  though  it  is 
scarcely  credible,  it  is  the  fact,  that  Mr  Mori- 
son's  sole  consideration  of  this  momentous  point 
is  contained  in  the  following  sentence  :  "A 
future  life,  however,  is  one  of  the  most  enor- 
mous assumptions,  without  proof,  ever  made  ; 
and  yet  on  this  immense  postulate  all  the 
alleged  consolations  of  religion  of  necessity 
hang ; "  and  with  these  few  words  he  waves 
aside  this  overwhelming-  source  of  Christian  con- 
solation !  Of  course  to  Mr  Morison  a  future  life 
is  "an  immense  postulate,"  "without  proof"; 
but  to  the  Christian  it  is  one  of  the  greatest  of 
certainties.  His  faith  in  it  is  "the  substance 
of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things  not 
seen."  Could  there  well  be  a  greater  perversity 
of  argument  ?  Mr  Morison  reads  his  own  doubts 
into  the  Christian's  mind,  and  then  denies  the 
reality  of  the  consolations  the  Christian  alleges. 
The  question  he  had  to  consider  was  whether,  on 
the  supposition  that  a  Christian  accepts  with 
entire  faith  the  assurances  of  our  Lord  and  His 


218       THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

apostles  respecting  a  future  life,  his  consolations 
do  not  infinitely  outweigh  his  sorrows.  But  to 
this,  which  is  the  vital  question  in  the  argument, 
he  gives  no  consideration  whatever ;  and  his 
argument  is  consequently  disposed  of  by  a  single 
sentence  of  St  Paul :  "I  reckon  that  the  suffer- 
ings of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy  to  be 
compared  with  the  glory  which  shall  be  revealed 
in  us." 

It  will  now  be  sufficiently  seen  with  what  kind 
of  an  antagonist  we  have  to  deal — a  man  too 
bitterly  prejudiced  to  attempt  to  realise  the  true 
nature  of  the  belief  he  is  attacking,  and  content 
to  dwell  on  any  apparent  difficulties  which  he 
can  turn  to  account,  without  waiting  or  caring  to 
consider  what  is  their  relation  to  other  elements 
in  the  case.  But  still  more  flagrant  instances  of 
this  unscrupulous  advocacy  remain  to  be  con- 
sidered. They  constitute  the  gravest  part  of 
Mr  Morison's  indictment  of  our  faith,  and  if  his 
allegations  in  this  part  of  his  argument  could  be 
established,  it  would  hardly  be  worth  while  to 
resist  his  attack  on  other  points.  He  proceeds 
to  discuss  the  question  to  which  we  have  already 
referred,  of  the  influence  of  Christianity  upon 
moral  conduct,  and  maintains  the  astonishing 
theses  above  quoted,  "that  the  doctrine  of  all 
Christians  in  the  final  result  is  antinomian  and 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       219 

positively  immoral.  They  do  not  only  not  sup- 
port and  strengthen  morality  as  they  claim  to 
do ;  they  deliberately  reject  and  scorn  it."  As 
we  have  already  said,  it  would  be  sufficient 
evidence  in  refutation  of  this  charge  that,  as 
Mr  Morison  himself  subsequently  argues,  Christi- 
anity has  ever  possessed  a  peculiar  attraction  for 
men  of  special  tenderness  of  heart  and  conscience. 
But  let  us  consider  the  grounds  on  which  Mr 
Morison  bases  this  wild  charge.  He  admits  that 
"  these  assertions  may  be  regarded  as  savouring 
of  paradox,"  and  he  says  he  will  accordingly 
"  proceed,  not  to  give  more  or  less  plausible 
reasons  for  accepting  them  as  true,  but  to  prove 
them" — the  italics  are  his  own — '^and  that  by 
the  most  authoritative  utterances  of  representa- 
tive Christian  doctors."  After  the  instances  we 
have  already  given  of  Mr  Morison 's  notions  of 
"  proof,"  the  reader  will  not  expect  much  rigour 
in  the  demonstration  ;  but  few  would  be  prepared 
for  the  inexcusable  misrepresentations  which  are 
offered  under  this  name. 

He  begins  by  a  palpable  perversion  of  an 
important  and  characteristic  statement  by 
Paley  :— 

"  If  I  were  to  describe,"  says  that  great  writer,  "  in 
a  very  few  words  the  scope  of  Christianity  as  a  revela- 
tion, I  should  say  tha|}  it  was  to  influence  the  conduct 


220       THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

of  human  life,  by  establishing  the  proof  of  a  future 
state  of  reward  and  punishment — '  to  bring  life  and 
immortality  to  light'  The  direct  object,  therefore,  of 
the  design  is  to  supply  motives,  and  not  rules ;  sanc- 
tions, and  not  precepts ;  and  these  were  what  mankind 
stood  most  in  need  of." 

Upon  this,  and  more  to  the  same  effect,  Mr 
Morison  observes : — 

"  In  other  words,  the  purpose  of  the  mission  was  to 
'make  men  fit  for  a  future  state  of  reward,  and  to  supply 
sanctions  which  would  deter  them  from  conduct  which 
would  make  them  fit  for  a  future  state  of  punishment. 
Salvation  in  the  next  world  is  the  object  of  the  scheme, 
not  morality  in  this." 

Now  it  will,  we  think,  be  evident  that  instead 
of  this  being  a  repetition  of  Paley's  statement  in 
other  words,  it  is  a  statement  of  the  direct  con- 
trary. Paley  says  that  the  scope  of  Christianity, 
as  a  revelation,  is  "to  influence  the  conduct  of 
human  life";  Mr  Morison  says  that  its  object  is 
not  morality  in  this  world — that  is,  not  right 
conduct  in  this  world.  He  seems,  in  fact,  to 
have  failed  entirely  to  understand  Paley's  point. 
Paley,  he  says,  "  is  willing  to  admit  that  the 
teaching  of  morality  was  not  the  primary  design 
of  the  Gospel,"  and  he  interprets  this  as  if  it 
meant  that  the  practising  of  morality  was  not 
the  primary  design  of  the  Gospel.     What  Paley 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON   CHRISTIANITY.       221 

says  is  that  people  practically  knew  what  was 
right  and  wrong,  in  the  most  important  points 
of  conduct,  without  the  further  revelation  of  the 
Gospel,  but  that  what  they  needed  were  adequate 
motives  for  acting  up  to  their  duty.  According 
to  Paley,  morality  in  this  world  is  the  direct 
and  immediate  object  of  the  Christian  scheme, 
and  salvation  in  the  next  world  is  its  ultimate 
and  subsequent  object.  Mr  Morison  begs  the 
whole  question  when  he  goes  on  to  say,  that 
'•  though  the  two  objects  may  occasionally 
coincide,  it  is  only  a  casual  coincidence.  Such 
difference  of  ends  must  lead  to  a  difference  of 
means."  Paley's  argument  implies  the  precise 
contrary ;  and  the  precise  contrary,  at  all  events, 
is  the  uniform  teaching  of  a  set  of  Christian 
doctors  whom  Mr  Morison  finds  it  for  the  most 
part  convenient  to  ignore  in  this  book — the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament. 

"  The  grace  of  God,"  says  St  Paul,  "  that  bringeth 
salvation  hath  appeared  to  all  men,  teaching  us  that, 
denying  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  we  should  live 
soberly,  righteously,  and  godly  in  this  present  world ; 
looking  for  that  blessed  hope  and  the  glorious  appear- 
ing of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ :  who 
gave  Himself  for  us,  that  He  might  redeem  us  from  all 
iniquity,  and  purify  unto  Himself  a  peculiar  people, 
zealous  of  good  works." — Titus  ii.  11-14. 

That  quotation  alone,  which  was,  we  think, 


222       THE   LATEST   ATTACK   ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

the  favourite  passage  of  the  great  Selden,  would 
be  enough  to  dispose  of  Mr  Morison's  attempt 
to  show  that  the  Christian  scheme  separates 
"  salvation  "  from  good  works.  The  fact  is,  that 
salvation  means  the  restoration  of  that  soundness 
of  nature  which  enables  a  man  to  do  good  works, 
and,  as  St  James  says,  it  is  practically  tested  by 
them. 

Mr  Morison's  opening  contention  on  this  topic, 
therefore,  is  simply  a  misunderstanding  or  mis- 
representation of  a  familiar  argument.  His  sub- 
sequent '*  proof"  may  be  more  plausible,  but  is 
equally  fallacious.  We  pass  over  many  minor 
inaccuracies  in  his  statement  of  theological  doc- 
trines, in  order  to  come  at  once  to  the  main 
point.  It  is  simply  a  statement  of  the  objection, 
as  old  as  the  time  of  St  Paul,  "  Shall  we  continue 
in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound  ? "  St  Paul  met  it 
with  an  emphatic  M';7  yevouro,  "  God  forbid  " ; 
but  St  Paul's  arguments  on  the  subject  are  not 
deemed  w^orthy  of  Mr  Morison's  attention.  He 
prefers  to  take  as  his  "  representative  Christian 
doctors  "  Dr  Pusey,  St  Alphonso  de'  Liguori,  and 
Mr  Spurgeon.  We  must  needs  say,  with  due 
respect  for  the  surviving  member  of  this  trium- 
virate, that  their  utterances  are  not  the  most 
authoritative  which  might  have  been  appealed  to 
among  uninspired  Christian  doctors  on  this  sub- 


THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON   CHRISTIANITY.       223 

ject.  But  if  they  are  quoted,  they  should  at  least 
be  quoted  fairly,  or  in  such  a  manner  as  to  give 
due  weight  to  any  qualifications  with  which  their 
statements  may  be  accompanied  ;  and  Dr  Pusey 
has,  at  all  events,  been  treated  with  flagrant  in- 
justice. Let  us,  however,  hear  Mr  Morison's  own 
statement  of  the  point  he  wishes  to  establish  : — 

"  All  Christian  doctors,"  he  says,  "  agree  that  true 
repentance  and  turning  to  God,  however  these  may  be 
brought  about,  are  rewarded  by  salvation.  Past  sins, 
— nay,  a  whole  life  of  sin, — if  repented  of  before 
death,  are  a  far  less  obstacle  to  entrance  into  paradise 
than  the  most  exemplary  and  virtuous  life,  if  unaccom- 
panied by  true  faith  in  Christ." 

The  latter  sentence  is  a  perfect  hyperbole  of 
misrepresentation,  and  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand how  a  man  accustomed  to  argument  could 
proceed  in  the  first  instance  to  quote  our  Eigh- 
teenth Article  in  support  of  it.  That  article 
denies  that  men  shall  be  saved  "  by  the  law  or 
sect "  which  they  profess,  and  asserts  that  Scrip- 
ture doth  set  out  unto  us  only  the  name  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  whereby  men  must  be  saved. 
But  it  says  nothing  about  an  exemplary  and  vir- 
tuous life  being  an  obstacle  to  salvation ;  and  Mr 
Morison  ought  to  have  known  very  well  that  all 
it  asserts  is  that  the  most  virtuous  man  is  not 
saved  by  means  of  his  virtue,  which,   however 


224      THE   LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

praiseworthy,  is  insufficient  for  that  purpose,  but 
for  the  merits  of  the  Saviour.  We  cannot  here 
diverge  into  a  defence  of  this  position  ;  but  to 
quote  it  as  saying  or  implying  that  a  good  man 
is  saved  in  spite  of  the  obstacle  presented  by  his 
virtue,  is  a  degree  of  misrepresentation  of  which 
it  is  difficult  to  speak  with  patience.  But  Mr 
Morison  proceeds  to  a  more  plausible  quotation 
from  Dr  Pusey.  The  passage  is  quoted  as  follows 
from  'What  is  of  Faith  as  to  Everlasting  Punish- 
ment,' p.  115. 

"  '  There  never  was  a  doubt  in  the  Church/  says  Dr 
Pusey,  '  that  all  who  die  in  a  state  of  grace,  although 
one  minute  before  they  were  not  in  a  state  of  grace,  are 
saved.  .  .  .  We  know  not  what  God  may  do  in  one 
agony  of  loving  penitence  for  one  who  accepts  his  last 
grace  in  that  almost  sacrament  of  death.'  Thus  peni- 
tence is  everything  and  morality  nothing.  Years  of 
sin,  which  may,  which  are  sure  to  have  caused  wide- 
spread moral  evils,  to  have  been  a  source  of  corruption 
and  leading  astray  to  the  weak  and  the  ignorant,  are 
all  obliterated  by  one  moment  of  loving  penitence  ; 
that  is,  they  are  obliterated  as  regards  their  effects 
on  the  sinner's  status  in  the  next  world.  He  is  washed 
in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  and  goes  to  glory." — P.  94. 

Now  we  beg  the  reader  to  observe  the  gap  in 
the  quotation  from  Dr  Pusey.  The  two  sen- 
tences which  it  divides  are  separated  by  about 
two  pages  ;    and  the  words  which  immediately 


THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       225 

follow  the  second  sentence,  which  in  Dr  Pusey's 
text  is  the  first,  are  these  : — 

"  The  question,  however,  is  not  about  individuals. 
As  a  class,  we  could  not  affirm  that  those  who  bring 
forth  no  worthy  fruits  of  repentance,  with  whom,  after 
a  long  period  of  deadly  sin,  repentance  has  been  but  a 
superficial  work,  may  not,  after  death,  be  in  a  state  of 
privation  of  the  sight  of  God  (the  pcena  dmnni),  not 
being  admitted  at  once  to  the  sight  of  Him,  whom  on 
earth  they  little  cared  to  think  of  or  to  speak  to,  and 
whom  they  served  with  a  cold  and  grudging  service. 
And  the  absence  of  the  sight  of  G-od,  whom  the  soul  in 
grace  knows  to  be  its  only  Good,  would,  when  the 
distractions  of  this  world  no  longer  dazzled  it,  be  an 
intense  suffering,  above  all  the  sufferings  of  this  life." 

Now,  we  ask,  what  is  to  be  thought  of  the 
fairness  of  a  writer  who,  in  quoting  a  divine 
of  Dr  Pusey's  authority,  omits  so  momentous  a 
qualification  as  this  ?  Dr  Pusey  carefully  ex- 
plains that  the  statements  quoted  by  Mr  Morison 
refer  only  to  the  possibilities  of  divine  action — 
"  We  know  not  what  God  may  do  " — in  excep- 
tional and  individual  cases,  and  he  states  in 
express  terms  that  he  cannot  make  any  such 
affirmation  respecting  persons  who  have  passed 
a  long  period  in  deadly  sin,  "  as  a  class."  Mr 
Morison  omits  this  important  limitation,  and 
quotes  the  saying  expressly  as  if  it  were  affirmed 
respecting  such  persons  "as  a  class."    The  quota- 

p 


226       THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

tion  from  Alphonso  de'  Liguori  is  a  superstitious 
story  of  a  monstrous  criminal  saved  from  execu- 
tion by  ''  the  glories  of  Mary,"  and  it  is  no  part 
of  our  case  to  deny  that  outrageous  perversions 
of  truth  and  morality  have  been  perpetrated 
by  extreme  Eoman  theologians.  As  to  Mr 
Spurgeon,  we  object  to  his  rhetoric  being  quoted 
as  ''  authoritative,"  even  as  expressing  his  own 
views  ;  if  he  has  said  that  "  great  sinners  shall 
have  no  back  seats  in  heaven,"  he  has  at  least 
spoken  recklessly  ;  and  some  of  the  language 
Mr  Morison  quotes  from  him  is  offensively  rash 
and  antinomian  in  its  tone,  and  contrasts  con- 
spicuously with  Dr  Pusey's  guarded  statement. 
But  we  protest  against  Christianity  being  held 
responsible  for  the  passionate  rhetoric  of  a  pop- 
ular preacher,  however  estimable  on  the  whole ; 
and  it  seems  to  us  a  sure  sign  of  a  weak  case 
that  Mr  Morison,  in  order  to  "  prove  "  his  asser- 
tion, has  to  misrepresent  the  only  learned  divine 
of  the  English  Church  whom  he  quotes,  and  to 
go  to  an  Ultramontane  casuist  and  a  Baptist 
minister  for  his  other  authorities. 

We  fully  admit,  however,  when  stated  with 
due  care,  the  main  principle  which  Mr  Spurgeon 
and  Dr  Pusey  both  have  in  view — namely,  that 
true  repentance  and  faith,  even  at  the  last 
moment,    are   sufficient  to   save  a  sinner  from 


THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON   CHRISTIANITY.       227 

eternal  ruin.  But  when  it  is  argued  that 
this  doctrine  makes  penitence  everything  and 
morality  nothing,  two  momentous  considerations 
are  left  out  of  sight.  The  first  is  that,  as  Dr 
Pusey  states,  such  repentance  and  faith,  at 
such  a  moment,  are  wholly  exceptional  in  their 
character.  We  were  the  more  concerned  to 
draw  attention  to  Mr  Morison  s  unfair  quota- 
tion from  Dr  Pusey,  because  it  indicates  that 
he  had  missed  the  main  point  of  such  state- 
ments. He  had  mistaken  statements,  which 
are  perfectly  true  in  regard  to  exceptional 
cases  and  extreme  possibilities,  as  though  they 
were  representations  of  the  ordinary  course  of 
Christian  grace  and  life.  It  is  perfectly  true, 
that  if  a  man  repents  truly  at  the  last  moment, 
he  will  be  forgiven ;  but  it  is  also  true,  and 
Christian  divines  have  earnestly  insisted  upon 
the  truth,  that  years  of  sin,  such  as  Mr  Morison 
speaks  of,  tend  to  make  such  repentance  so  dijSi- 
cult  as  to  be  almost  miraculous.  Mr  Morison, 
for  instance,  has  what  we  must  needs  call  the 
indecency  of  bringing  into  the  argument  our 
Lord's  words  to  the  robber  on  the  cross,  and  of 
insinuating,  what  he  is  obliged  to  disclaim  in 
the  same  breath,  that  our  Lord's  assurance  to 
His  fellow-sufferer  was  prompted  by  "  deferential 
speech  to  Himself."      But  not  to  dwell  on  the 


228      THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

gratuitous  insult  to  Christian  feeling  involved 
in  such  a  suggestion,  what  case  can  be  conceived 
more  wholly  exceptional  than  that  of  a  sinner 
witnessing  and  sharing  the  sufferings  of  the 
divine  Eedeemer?  If  any  influence  could  pro- 
duce a  wholly  unequalled  effect  on  the  soul  of 
a  man  who  had  any  spark  of  good  left  in  him, 
it  is  the  influence  of  such  fellowship  in  suffering, 
and  of  such  an  example.  To  say  that  this  is 
"  almost  exactly  parallel "  with  a  legend  cited 
by  St  Alphonso,  indicates  that  kind  of  moral 
disproportion  in  a  man's  views  which  is  enough 
to  exclude  his  judgments  on  such  matters  from 
serious  consideration.  There  are  few  points  on 
which  Christian  divines  have  more  earnestly 
insisted  than  that  morality  avenges  itself  only 
too  terribly  on  prolonged  sin,  by  rendering 
repentance  more  and  more  impracticable.  As 
Coleridge  says  in  the  '  Aids  to  Reflection '  : — 

"  Often  have  I  heard  it  said  by  advocates  for  the 
Socinian  scheme,  True !  we  are  all  sinners ;  but  even 
in  the  Old  Testament  God  has  promised  forgiveness 
on  repentance.  One  of  the  Fathers  (I  forget  which) 
supplies  the  retort :  True !  God  has  promised  pardon 
on  penitence,  but  has  He  promised  penitence  on  sin? 
He  that  repenteth  shall  be  forgiven ;  but  where  is  it 
said,  He  that  sinneth  shall  repent  ?  But  repentance, 
perhaps,  the  repentance  required  in  Scripture,  the 
passing  into  a  new   and  contrary  principle  of  action. 


THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       229 

this  metanoia,  is  in  the  sinner's  own  power,  at  his  own 
liking  ?  He  has  but  to  open  his  eyes  to  the  sin,  and 
the  tears  are  close  at  hand  to  wash  it  away  ?  Verily, 
the  tenet  of  Transubstantiation  is  scarcely  at  greater 
variance  with  the  common-sense  and  experience  of 
mankind,  or  borders  more  closely  on  a  contradiction 
in  terms,  than  this  volunteer  transmentation,  this 
self- change,  as  the  easy  means  of  self-salvation ! " 

This  is  one  of  the  considerations  to  which 
Mr  Morison  has  chosen  to  pay  no  regard.  The 
other  omission  is  even  more  inexcusable.  It  is 
difficult  to  suppose  him  ignorant  that  it  is  a 
prominent  point  of  the  Christian  creed  that 
every  man  will  be  judged  according  to  his 
works.  ''We  must  all  appear,"  says  St  Paul, 
"  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,  that  every 
one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  his  body, 
according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be 
good  or  bad."  This  is  a  point  mentioned  in 
each  of  the  creeds,  and  holds  a  foremost  place 
in  the  earliest  Christian  teaching.  Our  Lord's 
office  as  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  dead  is  a 
primary  element  in  Christian  doctrine  respecting 
Him.  Yet  scarcely  a  reference  is  made  to  it  in 
Mr  Morison's  "Discussion  of  the  Eelation  of 
Christianity  to  Morals."  Is  it  easy  to  conceive 
a  grosser  disregard  of  the  main  facts  which  a 
serious  writer  on  this  subject  had  to  consider? 
Two  seasons  of  the  Christian  year,  Advent  and 


230       THE   LATEST   ATTACK   ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

Lent,  are  devoted  to  the  inculcation  of  this 
vital  truth  upon  the  Christian  mind.  The 
judgment  of  which  men  are  thus  annually  re- 
minded is  a  judgment  on  their  morality,  and 
the  repentance  to  which  they  are  summoned  is 
a  repentance  from  immoral  conduct  of  every 
kind.  When,  therefore,  Mr  Morison  sums  up 
his  indictment  by  saying  of  Christian  teachers 
that  "  salvation  was  their  object,  not  morality ; 
they  have  not  aimed  at  it,  and  they  have  not 
attained  it,"  he  is  contradicted  by  the  most 
patent  facts  of  everyday  Christian  life,  and  by 
the  most  familiar  Christian  creeds. 

But  we  must  add,  that  he  writes  in  no  less 
ignorance  of  human  nature  than  of  Christianity. 
The  quotation  we  have  made  from  Coleridge  suffi- 
ciently exposes  his  supposition,  that  repentance 
is  the  easy  thing  which  his  argument  requires. 
But  he  is  still  more  in  error  in  his  estimation 
of  the  practical  influence  upon  the  human  heart 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  forgiveness.  He 
has  overlooked  the  enormous  power  of  hope 
and  gratitude.  The  mass  of  men  and  women 
are  weak,  and  grieved  at  their  weakness,  and 
their  danger  is  a  sort  of  hopeless  acquiescence 
in  it,  if  not  despair.  A  message  which  promises 
them  the  forgiveness  of  a  personal  God,  and 
holds  out  to  them  the  hope  of  restoration  to 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       231 

communion  with  Him,   and  of  the  perfect  re- 
generation of  their  natures,  inspires  their  hearts 
with    all   the    moral    energy   of    a    new    hope. 
When,  besides  this,  the  promise  is  coupled  with 
the  revelation  of  an  act  of  infinite  self-sacrifice 
on   the   part  of  a   loving  Saviour,    a   sense   of 
grateful  obligation  is  aroused  which  appeals  to 
all  the  better  feelings  of  the  heart,  and  bends 
the   whole   soul    to    gratitude    and    obedience. 
The    proclamation    of    free    forgiveness    is    no 
doubt  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  and 
it  is  no  doubt  liable  to  abuse.     St  Paul's  argu- 
ment in  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans,  to  which 
we  have  already  referred,  proves  that  it  was  so 
abused  in  his    day ;  but   the   indignation   with 
which   he   repudiates   the   abuse   embodies    the 
voice   of  the   Christian   conscience   ever   since ; 
and  that  Mr  Morison  should  make  no  reference 
to  that  famous  passage,  is  a  conspicuous  proof  of 
his  inability  or  unwillingness  to  grapple  with  the 
real  strength  of  the  Christian  position.      After 
all,  the  question  is  settled,  as  all  such  questions 
are  settled,  by  one  short  parable  of  our  Lord  : — 

"  There  was  a  certain  creditor  which  had  two  debtors: 
the  one  owed  five  hundred  pence,  and  the  other  fifty. 
And  when  they  had  nothing  to  pay,  he  frankly  forgave 
them  both.  Tell  me  therefore,  which  of  them  will 
love  him  most  ?      Simon  answered  and  said,  I  suppose 


232       THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHEISTIANITY. 

that  he  to  whom  he  forgave  most.     And  He  said  unto 
him,  Thou  hast  rightly  judged." 

But  Mr  Morison  j)roceeds  to  give  what  is  per- 
haps the  most  flagrant  instance  which  even  this 
book  affords  of  inconsecutive  argument  and  un- 
just treatment  of  the  faith  he  is  attacking.  The 
next  chapter  is  entitled  "Morality  in  the  Ages 
of  Faith,"  and  is  designed  to  support  by  the  evi- 
dence of  experience  his  abstract  deduction,  that 
Christianity  is  unfavourable  to  morality  : — 

"  If  only  a  tithe  of  the  compliments  which  it  is 
usual  to  pay  that  doctrine  be  true,  it  is  clear  that  the 
more  we  retrograde  into  the  ages  where  it  held  undis- 
puted sway  over  men's  minds,  the  more  moral  ought 
we  to  find  the  public  and  private  life  of  the  world." 

He  accordingly  proposes  an  inquiry  into  the 
morality  of  the  "  Ages  of  Faith  "  : — 

"  Do  we  find,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  Ages  of 
Faith  were  distinguished  by  a  high  morality  ?  The 
answer  must  be  in  the  negative.  Taking  them  broadly, 
the  Ages  of  Faith  were  emphatically  ages  of  crime,  of 
gross  and  scandalous  wickedness,  of  cruelty,  and,  in  a 
word,  of  immorality." 

Now  there  is  no  fault  to  be  found  on  principle 
with  this  argument.  By  all  means  let  Chris- 
tianity be  judged  by  its  fruits,  and  if  we  find 
that  in  the  times  when  its  teaching  and  its  dis- 
cipline were  most  operative,  when  they  prevailed 


THE   LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       233 

in  their  purest  and  most  powerful  form,  they  did 
not  tend  to  the  promotion  of  morality,  Mr  Mori- 
son's  argument  would  be  perfectly  justified.     But 
would  it  have  been  credible  beforehand  that  a 
man  of  literary  culture  should  select  as  the  period 
for  this  experiment  the  darkest  and  most  super- 
stitious parts  of  the  middle  ages,  and  should  say 
nothing — absolutely  nothing — of  the  influence  of 
Christianity  upon  the  members  of  the  Church 
during   the  first  four   centuries  ?      Mr   Morison 
must  know  perfectly  well  that  the  phrase  "the 
Ages  of  Faith "  is  purely  delusive  as  an  indica- 
tion of  the  force  and  purity  with  which  Chris- 
tian doctrine  and  discipline  then  prevailed.     He 
knows  that  the  middle  ages  were  times  when 
gross  superstition  and  profound  ignorance  pre- 
vailed among  the  mass  of  the  Christian  clergy, 
and  when  perversions  of  Christian  doctrine  grew 
up    which    provoked    a   tremendous    convulsion 
at    the   Eeformation.      He   must   know  also   to 
what  cause  these  perversions  were  due.     From 
the  time  of  the  fall  of  the  Eoman  empire  the 
Church    had    been   struggling   with   fierce,    and 
in  some  respects  barbarous,  races ;  and  though 
she    achieved    in    many   respects    a    wonderful 
victory,  of  which  we  reap  the  fruits  in  the  pres- 
ent day,  their  ignorance  and  their  barbarism  re- 
acted upon  her.     When  one  reads  the  horrors 


234      THE   LATEST   ATTACK    ON   CHRISTIANITY. 

of  Merovingian  France,  it  is  little  less  than  a 
miracle  that  in  the  course  of  a  few  centuries  a 
man  like  St  Louis,  whom  Mr  Morison  considers 
perhaps  the  best  man  who  ever  lived,  should 
have  been  moulded  by  the  Church  from  the 
royal  blood  of  that  country.  The  Church  was 
at  all  events,  with  all  its  defects,  the  o-reat 
civilising  influence  of  those  ages ;  but  to  turn 
to  them  as  the  crucial  example  of  the  influence 
of  Christianity  in  its  freest  and  purest  action,  is 
a  violation  of  historic  truth  of  which  a  man  of 
letters  ought  to  be  ashamed.  Of  course  Mr 
Morison  has  no  difliculty  in  raking  up  any 
number  of  foul  and  filthy  stories  from  those 
dark  ages ;  but  we  must  needs  say  that  the 
detailed  recapitulation  of  these  stories,  and 
especially  the  insistence  on  what  he  calls  the 
"  sly  humour "  of  some  of  them,  is  perhaps  the 
most  offensive  and  most  inexcusable  part  of  this 
volume.  It  was  entirely  unnecessary  to  violate 
decency  in  this  flagrant  manner  in  order  to  recall 
the  fact  that  the  Court  and  times  of  Louis  XIV., 
or  the  convents  of  the  later  middle  ages,  were 
marked  by  gross  scandals.  To  tell  such  stories 
at  such  length,  and  with  such  evident  relish,  is 
a  singular  instance  of  the  high  morality  on  which 
Mr  Morison  prides  himself  or  his  theories.  But 
when  a  man   can    compare,   as  he   does   in    his 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       235 

preface,  "  the  barren  prostitute "  to  poor  mar- 
ried people  with  large  families,  to  the  disadvan- 
tage of  the  latter,  he  betrays  a  moral  obliquity 
which  removes  all  surprise  at  similar  offences. 

What,  however,  is  the  value  of  an  appeal  to 
experience  as  to  the  moral  influence  of  Chris- 
tianity which   goes   no   further   back   than  the 
middle  ages,  and  takes  no  account  of  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Church  when  in  its  purest  and 
most  vigorous  days  ?     If  Mr  Morison  does  not 
know,  he  ought  to  know,  as  every  man  of  learn- 
ing does  know,  that  nothing  was  more  conspicuous 
in  the  Church  of  the  first  four  centuries  than  the 
intense  enthusiasm  with  which  it  devoted  itself 
to  the  cultivation  of  all  the  moral  virtues,  and 
the  rigid  discipline  which  it  exercised  over  its 
members  in  respect  of  their  moral  conduct.     Let 
a  man   turn   to   the  *  Apologies '   of  St   Justin 
Martyr,  or  to  the  Canons  of  the  early  Councils, 
and  he  will  be  in  a  position  to  judge  of  the 
monstrosity   of  the   statement,   that   Christians 
"  have  not  aimed  at  morality."     We  must  apol- 
oo^ise  for  troubling;  the  reader  with  facts  with 
which  every  educated  man  ought  to  be  familiar; 
but  the  best  answer  to  the  charge  that  Christians, 
when  their  belief  was  purest  and  most  fervent, 
did   not   aim   at   morality,  is   afforded    by   the 
familiar   passage   in  which   the   younger    Pliny 


236       THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

gives  Trajan  an  account  of  the  character  of  the 
Christians  in  his  province,  as  he  had  ascertained 
it  by  judicial  inquiry.  "  This,"  he  says,  "  was 
the  sum  of  their  fault  or  error,  that  they  were 
wont  to  meet  together  on  a  stated  day  before 
sunrise,  and  sing  a  hymn  to  Christ  as  God,  and 
bind  themselves  by  a  saci' amentum  that  they 
would  not  commit  theft,  or  robbery,  or  adultery, 
that  they  would  not  break  faith,  nor  repudiate 
a  trust."  That  is  the  independent  testimony 
of  an  impartial  Roman  statesman  as  to  what 
Christianity  "  aimed  at,"  as  practically  exhibited 
in  the  life  and  worship  of  the  Christians  of  his 
day ;  and  every  one  who  has  studied  Church 
history  knows  that  this  was  in  an  extraordinary 
degree  not  merely  the  aim,  but  the  achievement, 
of  the  early  Church. 

But  why  are  we  to  be  debarred  from  going 
further  back  still  ?  What  right  has  Mr  Morison 
to  exclude  the  New  Testament  from  considera- 
tion in  answer  to  the  inquiry  whether  the  Gospel 
aims  at  morality?  The  New  Testament  is  the 
charter  of  Christian  doctrine  and  discipline,  and 
the  urgency  with  which  it  insists  upon  morality 
of  all  kinds,  as  indispensable  to  the  Christian 
character  and  the  enjoyment  of  the  Christian 
salvation,  is  too  obvious  to  need  any  argument. 
The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  a  cardinal  Christian 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       237 

document,  and  to  sa}^  that  it  does  not  aim  at 
morality  is  too  ridiculous  an  absurdity.  Every 
Epistle  directs  the  ultimate  force  of  its  exhor- 
tations upon  Christian  practice,  and  upon  the 
inculcation  of  every  moral  and  gracious  virtue. 
St  Paul  summarily  declares,  "  The  foundation 
of  God  standeth  sure,  having  this  seal.  The  Lord 
knoweth  them  that  are  His.  And,  let  every  one 
that  nameth  the  name  of  Christ  depart  from 
iniquity."  In  the  ages  to  which  Mr  Morison 
chooses  to  direct  his  prejudiced  appeal,  those 
sacred  words  were  not  the  common  property  of 
Christians  ;  they  were  shrouded  in  a  learned 
language,  and  only  faint  echoes  of  them  reached 
the  popular  ear.  Even  at  this  day,  in  France, 
under  the  system  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church, 
a  devout  French  Catholic,  M.  Lasserre,  who 
recently  produced  a  brilliant  translation  of  the 
Gospels,  expresses  the  opinion  in  his  preface 
that,  on  an  average,  not  more  than  three  persons 
in  a  French  parish  have  ever  carefully  read  the 
Gospels  through.  But  the  Gospels  and  Epistles, 
and  not  the  superstition  and  ignorance  of  the 
middle  ages,  are  the  true  exposition  of  what 
Christianity  aims  at ;  and  in  proportion  as  their 
influence  has  been  felt  and  has  spread  abroad, 
has  morality  been  deepened  and  widened. 
It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  expose  further  a 


238       THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

tissue  of  bitter  misrepresentation,  not  paralleled, 
to  our  remembrance,  in  a  man  of  Mr  Morison's 
position.  But  at  this  point  he  seems  to  relent, 
and  proceeds  to  give  an  account  of  "  what 
Christianity  has  done,"  which,  as  we  have  more 
than  once  pointed  out,  is  utterly  inconsistent 
with  the  gross  charges  he  had  been  bringing 
against  it.  Even  this  chapter  is  wholly  incon- 
sistent with  itself.  He  begins  by  disparaging 
the  influences  under  which  Christianity  arose, 
and  by  which  Christian  theology  was  elaborated, 
concluding  that  the  Nicene  Creed  "  was  the 
product  of  an  age  of  decay,  of  disaster,  and 
approaching  death;"  but  a  few  pages  further, 
he  urges  that  "  it  cannot  be  a  mere  accident 
that  Christianity  alone  has  produced  elaborate 
systems  of  theology,  which  in  depth  and  compass 
can  compare  with  any  systems  of  philosophy, 
ancient  or  modern."  He  points  to  "the  intel- 
lectual revival  which  followed  the  spread  of 
Christianity,"  and  says  that  "  of  all  writers  who 
have  used  Latin  as  their  mother  tongue,  it  is  no 
exaggeration  to  say  that  St  Augustine  is  by  far 
the  most  original,  suggestive,  and  profound.  He 
is  a  genuine  thinker,  not  a  mere  rhetorician  like 
Cicero,  Seneca,  and  the  rest."  Similarly,  turning 
to  the  influence  of  Christianity  on  character,  he 
says  that 


THE    LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY.       239 

"  what  needs  admitting,  or  rather  proclaiming,  by 
Agnostics  who  would  be  just  is,  that  the  Christian 
doctrine  has  a  power  of  cultivating  and  developing 
saintliness  which  has  had  no  equal  in  any  other  creed 
or  philosophy.  When  it  gets  hold  of  a  promising  sub- 
ject, one  with  a  head  and  a  heart  warm  and  strong 
enough  to  grasp  its  full  import  and  scope,  then  it 
strengthens  the  will,  raises  and  purifies  the  affections, 
and  finally  achieves  a  conquest  over  the  baser  self 
in  man,  of  which  the  result  is  a  character  none  the 
less  beautiful  and  soul-subduing  because  it  is  wholly 
beyond  imitation  by  the  less  spiritually  endowed." 

Is  any  further  confession  needed  to  exhibit 
the  fallacy  and  the  injustice  of  all  the  previous 
argument  ?  Is  it  conceivable  that  a  theology 
which  "  in  depth  and  compass  can  compare  with 
any  system  of  philosophy,  ancient  or  modern," 
can  deserve  the  contemptuous  treatment  it  re- 
ceived in  the  opening  chapters  ?  or  that  a  creed 
which,  where  it  finds  a  good  soil,  "  strengthens 
the  will,  raises  and  purifies  the  affections,  and 
finally  achieves  a  conquest  over  the  baser  self," 
can  deserve  to  have  its  moral  tendency  treated 
with  the  opprobrium  we  have  had  to  quote  ? 
Mr  Morison,  indeed,  endeavours  to  escape  this 
paradox  by  arguing  that  men  in  general  are  no 
more  fitted  to  yield  to  the  influences  of  Chris- 
tianity than  to  become  great  artistic  geniuses. 
"  It  would  be  as  rational  to  say  that  the  poetry 


240      THE   LATEST    ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

of  Shakespeare,  the  music  of  Beethoven,  and 
the  geometry  of  Lagrange  were  accessible  to 
all  men."  But  they  are  none  the  less  true 
poetry,  true  music,  and  true  geometry,  and  they 
are,  in  fact,  accessible  to  all  men  in  proportion 
to  their  capacity.  Truths  which  produce  their 
highest  influences  on  the  best  natures  produce 
a  corresponding,  though  inferior,  effect  upon  the 
inferior  ones,  just  as,  according  to  our  Saviour's 
parable,  the  same  seed  produces  fruit,  "  some 
thirtyfold,  some  sixtyfold,  and  some  an  hun- 
dred," according  to  the  soil  on  which  it  falls. 
But  one  of  the  most  miserable  points  in  this 
Positivist  doctrine  is  that  it  would  create  a  caste 
of  superior  souls,  and  relegate  those  who,  often 
by  no  fault  of  their  own,  have  become  enslaved 
by  baser  influences,  to  permanent  degradation. 
It  has  no  message  of  mercy  or  deliverance  for 
the  weak  or  the  fallen. 

"  The  sooner,"  says  Mr  Morison,  "  the  idea  of 
moral  responsibility  is  got  rid  of,  the  better  will  it 
be  for  society  and  moral  education.  The  sooner  it 
is  perceived  that  bad  men  will  be  bad,  do  what  we 
will,  though  of  course  they  may  be  made  less  bad,  the 
sooner  shall  we  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
welfare  of  society  demands  the  suppression  or  elimin- 
ation of  bad  men,  and  the  careful  cultivation  of  the 
good  only." 

Such  is  the  result  to  which  we  are  led  by 


THE   LATEST   ATTACK    OX    CHRISTIANITY.       241 

this  theory  of  an  absolute  division  between  the 
capacities  of  different  classes  of  men  and  women. 
Christianity  has  been  a  perpetual  source  of  re- 
generation, by  acting  on  the  opposite  principle, 
by  believing  that  no  one  in  this  world  is  past 
reclamation,  by  generous  offers  of  forgiveness, 
and  by  setting  before  men  the  purest  and  loftiest 
moral  ideal  as  the  aim  of  their  efforts.  If  it  is 
to  be  supplanted,  it  must  be  by  better  logic, 
better  feeling,  more  honest  argument,  than  is 
exhibited  in  this  volume. 

In  short,  we  must  needs  say  that  this  book  is 
a  disgrace  to  its  author,  and  to  the  school  of 
thought  from  which  it  issues.  We  have  shown 
that  it  starts  with  an  exhibition  of  scientific 
bigotry,  in  direct  conflict  with  the  patent  testi- 
mony of  distinguished  men  of  science  ;  that  it 
displays  gross  ignorance  of  the  recent  criticism 
of  the  New  Testament  to  which  it  appeals  ;  that 
its  opening  disparagements  of  Christian  theology 
rest  on  childish  misapprehensions  and  on  the 
crudest  arguments ;  that  it  ignores  the  most 
conspicuous  facts  in  the  consolatory  influences 
of  our  faith  ;  that  it  brings  a  charge  against  it 
of  immoral  tendency,  which  can  only  be  support- 
ed by  misquotation  and  misrepresentation  ;  that 
its  pretended  appeal  to  experience' is  based  on  a 
mere  juggle  of  phrases,   and  ignores  the   most 

Q 


242       THE    LATEST   ATTACK    ON    CHRISTIANITY. 

conspicuous  and  unquestionable  facts  ;  and  that, 
finally,  the  author  has  practically  to  give  up  his 
case  altogether,  by  admitting  that  the  doctrine 
and  the  discipline  he  has  been  disparaging  is 
at  least  the  best  adapted  to  the  highest  human 
characters.  And  for  what  end  is  all  this  display 
of  unreason  and  uncharitableness  ?  Simply,  it 
would  seem,  to  promote  the  spirit  of  self- 
sacrifice,  and  to  direct  men's  energies  to  the 
"  service  of  man."  But  these  are  the  very  two 
objects  which  Christianity  from  the  first  has  had 
in  view,  except  that  it  has  added  the  supreme 
motive,  that  the  service  of  man  is  at  the  same 
time  the  best  service  of  God.  If  these  are 
Mr  Morison's  objects,  was  it  worth  while  to  be 
illogical,  unjust,  unhistorical,  and  profane,  in 
order  to  disparage  a  religion  of  which  the  Master 
taught  that  "  This  is  my  commandment,  That 
ye  love  one  another,  as  I  have  loved  you.  Great- 
er love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay 
down  his  life  for  his  friends  ;  "  and  of  which 
His  apostle  wrote,  that  "Pure  religion  and  un- 
defiled  before  God  and  the  Father  is  this.  To 
visit  the  fatherless  and  widows  in  their  afiliction, 
and  to  keep  himself  unspotted  from  the  world  "  ? 


24; 


APPENDIX. 


EGBERT  ELSMEEE  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 

The  following  review  of  Mrs  Humphry  Ward's  novel, 
'Robert  Elsmere,'  was  published  in  the  'Quarterly  Eeview' 
for  October  1888. 

The  success  of  this  novel  is  the  most  interesting,  and 
in  some  respects  the  most  instructive,  literary  event 
of  the  present  year.  It  is  an  instance  of  Mr  Glad- 
stone's keen  eye  for  popular  sensation  that  he  at  once 
threw  himself  into  the  stream  of  current  interest  in 
the  book ;  and  this  interest  was  no  doubt  augmented 
by  the  article  which  he  published  in  one  of  those 
monthly  reviews  which  devote  themselves  to  the  im- 
partial dissemination  of  truth  and  falsehood.  But  the 
book  had  run  rapidly  through  two  or  three  editions 
before  it  had  received  this  impulse.  In  six  months  it 
had  gone  through  five  editions  in  its  original  form 
of  three  closely  printed  volumes ;  and  it  is  now 
commanding  a  further  sale  in  the  cheaper  and  more 
popular  form  of  a  single  volume.  A  success  of  this 
kind  is  proof  that  a  book  has  touched  some  general 


244  APPENDIX. 

and  deep  source  of  public  feeling,  and  has  given 
vivid  expression  to  thoughts  or  interests  which  are 
widely  spread. 

Of  the  thoughts  and  interests  which  have  been 
touched  in  the  present  case  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
The  main  subject  of  the  book  is  very  different  from 
that  of  an  ordinary  novel.  There  is,  indeed,  a  good 
deal  of  love  and  passion  and  social  life  in  it ;  and 
these  perennial  sources  of  human  interest  are  the 
material  of  several  beautiful  and  brilliant  passages. 
The  love  of  Eobert  Elsmere  and  of  Catherine  his  wife 
is,  with  one  grievous  exception,  a  very  gracious  and 
tender  picture.  The  series  of  struggles  in  Catherine's 
mind ;  the  transition,  from  her  simple  life  of  religious 
and  domestic  devotion  in  a  Westmoreland  dale,  to  the 
deep  and  gentle  love  of  married  life  in  a  Surrey  vicar- 
age ;  the  wrench  which  her  heart  and  soul  undergo 
when  her  husband's  abjuration  of  Christianity  obliges 
her  to  follow  him,  in  solitude  and  bitterness  of  spirit, 
to  an  unknown  and  uncongenial  career  in  London ; 
the  gradual  establishment  of  a  sort  of  working  compro- 
mise between  her  intense  womanly  love  and  her  still 
more  intense  devotion  to  her  old  creed, — all  this  is 
depicted  with  a  force  and  a  delicacy  which  bespeak 
the  feminine  sympathy  as  well  as  the  great  literary 
ability  of  the  authoress.  There  is,  moreover,  one  per- 
sonage in  the  story  who  appeals  with  sufficient  force 
to  the  ordinary  interests  of  romance.  Catherine's 
grave  character  is  skilfully  balanced  by  her  sister 
Rose,  the  child  of  passionate  instincts,  which  are  played 
on,  like  her  own  violin,  by  art,  fancy,  love,  sympathy, 
or  repulsion. 

"  A  rosebud,  set  with  little  wilful  thorns, 
And  sweet  as  English  air  could  make  her,  she  ; " 

but  developing,  through  her  dangerous  experiences,  the 


ROBERT    ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.       245 

deeper  moral  capacities  she  inherits  from  her  father, 
Eichard  Leyburn.  The  story  of  Eose's  first  fancy  for 
the  morbid  Oxford  Don,  Langham,  not  heartless,  but 
with  his  heart  paralysed  by  a  cold  scepticism ;  her 
painful  but  salutary  escape  from  him  by  the  act  of 
his  own  unmanliness,  and  her  gradual  surrender,  when 
she  had  recovered  her  self-respect,  to  a  worthier  and 
steadier  passion ;  the  development  of  her  artistic 
genius  ;  her  social  flatteries,  triumphs,  and  disillu- 
sions— all  this  would  have  furnished  matter  enough 
for  an  ordinary  novel,  and  is  described  with  singular 
skill  and  grace.  The  narrative  is  relieved  and  illus- 
trated, moreover,  by  a  rare  sympathy  with  nature,  and 
remarkable  capacity  for  natural  description.  These 
pictures  of  natural  scenery  are  sometimes,  perhaps,  too 
lengthy,  as  in  the  long  description  of  Whindale  with 
which  the  book  opens,  and  which  we  confess  seemed 
to  us,  at  a  first  glance,  so  long  a  stretch  of  country  to 
be  got  through  before  reaching  the  human  interest  of 
the  story,  that  we  soon  put  the  book  down  again  when 
we  first  took  it  up.  But  a  very  impressive  correspon- 
dence is  maintained  throughout  between  the  scenery 
and  the  action,  and  in  this,  as  in  many  other  points, 
Mrs  Ward  exhibits  high  artistic  power. 

But  all  these  attractions  of  an  ordinary  romance  are 
completely  overshadowed  by  the  main  action  and  pre- 
dominant interest  of  the  book.  They  are  the  byplay 
of  a  story,  in  which  the  main  subject  is  a  religious 
tragedy  and  a  theological  controversy  ;  and  few  per- 
sons would  be  at  the  trouble  to  read  through  so  long 
a  novel,  for  the  sake  of  its  romantic  episodes,  who 
were  not  chiefly  interested  in  the  religious  struggle 
which  it  depicts.  Mrs  Ward  has  invested  with  the 
attraction  of  a  personal  tragedy  some  of  the  most 
characteristic  questions  of  the  critical  and  theological 


246  APPENDIX. 

debate  of  the  past  generation ;  and  many  people  who 
recoil  from  essays  and  lectures — even  from  that  latest 
example  of  the  imitation  which  is  the  truest  sort  of 
flattery,  the  Hibbert  Lectures,  which  have  become  a 
sort  of  scientific  rivals  of  the  Bamptons — many  people 
on  whom  even  the  witty  and  irreverent  audacity  of 
the  late  Mr  Matthew  Arnold  had  failed  to  lay  much 
hold,  have  been  attracted  by  the  same  representa- 
tions when  furbished  up  in  a  novel,  and  invested 
with  a  tragic  excitement  in  the  life  of  an  interest- 
ing clergyman.  To  many  persons,  indeed,  the  book 
has  for  this  reason  one  wearisome  and  disappointing 
aspect.  It  depicts  to  them  a  phase  of  thought,  at 
Oxford  especially,  long  ago  lived  through,  and  practi- 
cally dead.  Much  of  its  representations  of  the  state 
of  critical  and  theological  thought  remind  us  of  the 
admirable  observation,  that  "  Oxford  is  the  place  to 
which  good  German  philosophies  go  when  they  die." 
The  conclusions  of  the  Tubingen  school,  which  have 
been  long  recognised  as  extravagant  not  only  by  M. 
Eenan,  but  in  Germany  itself,  are  still  described  as 
"  that  great  operation  worked  by  the  best  intellect  of 
Europe  during  the  last  half- century — broadly  speaking 
— on  the  facts  and  documents  of  primitive  Christi- 
anity"  (vol.  iii.  p.  206);  and  even  the  reconstructive 
part  of  the  book  does  not  get  beyond  the  formuhie 
and  the  arbitrary  assumptions  of  M.  Eenan  and  Mr 
Matthew  Arnold.  But  to  those  who  have  not  followed 
the  critical  debate  of  the  last  twenty  years,  this  defect 
constitutes  at  once  the  interest  and  the  danger  of  the 
book — its  interest,  because  all  these  exploded  fallacies 
come  to  them  with  the  attraction  and  the  mystery  of 
novel  discoveries ;  and  its  danger,  because  they  are 
unacquainted   with   the   facts   and    considerations    by 


ROBERT    ELSMERE   AND    CHRISTIANITY.       247 

which  these  particular  fallacies,  at  all  events,  have 
been  banished  from  the  field  of  instructed  controversy. 
We  refrain,  in  deference  partly  to  Mrs  Ward's  ser- 
vices in  other  departments  of  learning,  partly  to  her 
earnestness  and  sincerity,  and  partly  to  her  sex,  from 
expressing  the  censure  which  would  ordinarily  be  due 
to  a  writer  who  engaged  in  an  attack  upon  the  re- 
ceived Christian  faith  with  so  imperfect  a  knowledge 
of  the  present  conditions  of  the  controversy,  and  con- 
sequently with  such  inevitable  misrepresentations. 
But  for  these  reasons  we  feel  it  incumbent  on  sober 
criticism  to  take  more  notice  of  a  controversial  novel 
than  is  ordinarily  requisite. 

A  critic,  indeed,  is  at  a  great  disadvantage  in  deal- 
ing with  such  a  work  in  a  mere  essay.  The  proper 
answer  to  '  Eobert  Elsmere '  would  be  an  equally  good 
novel,  which,  instead  of  killing  Eobert  Elsmere  off  con- 
veniently at  the  moment  when  his  theories  were  being 
put  to  the  test  of  practice,  and  ending  by  the  greatest 
piece  of  romance  in  the  whole  book — the  statement 
that  the  brotherhood  he  founded  still  exists — would 
describe  the  inevitable  breakdown  of  such  arbitrary 
assumptions  and  conventions  under  the  stress  of  com- 
mon-sense, common  history,  and  common  life.  In 
default  of  this,  we  will  endeavour  to  supply  what  Mr 
Gladstone  has  justly  noticed  as  the  great  deficiency  of 
the  book — some  slight  representation  of  the  arguments 
on  the  other  side.  This  omission  is,  indeed,  the  almost 
uniform  vice  of  a  controversial  novel.  It  is  easy  to 
prove  anything  one  pleases  in  such  a  composition. 
The  author  is  able  at  pleasure  to  give  all  the  good 
qualities  and  all  the  good  arguments  to  the  side  which 
is  favoured.  It  reminds  us  of  the  old  fable  of  the 
picture  of  an  unarmed  man  throttling  a  lion,  and  of 


248  APPENDIX. 

the  lion's  criticism  on  it.  It  is  rare  to  meet  a  con- 
troversial novel  in  which  the  beaten  side  makes  any 
respectable  fight,  and  this  defect  vitiates  the  whole 
description. 

In  '  Eobert  Elsmere '  this  unfairness  passes  all 
tolerable  bounds,  and  leads  to  the  one  great  blot  in 
the  personal  interest  of  the  narrative.  Eobert  Els- 
mere is  described  as  struc^olingj  for  months  with  the 
doubts  implanted  in  him  by  the  Mephistopheles  of  the 
story,  the  Squire  of  his  parish,  and  neither  taking  his 
wife  into  his  confidence,  nor  seeking  help  or  guidance 
from  a  single  representative  of  tlie  faith  he  is  tempted 
to  abandon.  His  treatment  of  Catherine  in  this  re- 
spect seems  to  us,  indeed,  too  cruel  and  heartless  to  be 
conceivable.  He  knew  that  his  wife's  whole  soul  was 
devoted,  with  a  rare  depth  and  sincerity,  to  the  verities 
he  was  tempted  to  deny,  and  to  the  life  of  the  Christ- 
ian ministry  of  which  he  was  contemplating  the  sur- 
render ;  yet  he  never  opens  his  heart  or  thoughts  to 
her  until  his  decision  is  made ;  and  then  brings  back 
to  her  from  Oxford,  one  summer  evening,  the  crash  of 
her  deepest  hopes  and  aspirations  for  himself,  and  so 
far  for  her.  The  scene  in  which  she  is  described  as 
almost  crushed,  and  driven  away  from  him  for  ever, 
by  this  heartless  shock,  is  one  of  the  most  touching 
and  powerful  in  the  book ;  and  Catherine's  conduct 
and  feeling  in  such  circumstances  seem  to  us  both 
truly  and  finely  conceived.  But  a  man  who  was  cap- 
able of  treating  his  wife  with  this  cruel  self-absorption, 
or  of  taking  so  momentous  a  step  without  seeking  any 
counsel  from  the  best  representatives  of  his  old  faith, 
exhibits  a  character  very  ill  suited  to  the  hero  of  a 
real  religious  conflict.  The  only  representative  of  the 
old  faith  with  whom  he  is  actually  confronted  is  an 


EOBEET    ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.       249 

enthusiastic,  and  even  fanatic,  ritualist  priest,  whose 
sole  idea  of  faith  is  the  desperate  renunciation  of 
reason.  It  is  contrary  to  the  plainest  dictates  of  com- 
mon-sense and  common  duty  that  a  man  should  make 
a  decision  which  involves  such  consequences  to  the 
parishioners  in  his  charge,  to  his  wife  and  to  his 
friends,  without  taking  the  trouble  to  hear  what  could 
be  said  in  answer  to  his  difficulties  by  some  competent 
representative  of  the  cause  he  was  going  to  desert. 
He  pays,  indeed,  a  hurried  visit  to  Oxford  before  his 
final  disclosure  to  Catherine ;  but  he  goes  there  not  to 
consult  some  Christian  scholar  or  theologian,  but  to 
ask  counsel,  which  he  must  have  known  would  be 
encouragement,  from  a  tutor  of  his  old  college,  Mr 
Henry  Grey,  who  is  practically  identified  by  a  note  at 
the  end  of  the  volume  with  the  late  Professor  Green, 
and  whom  he  knew  to  have  abandoned  belief  in  mir- 
acle and  miraculous  Christianity.  A  passing  sneer  at 
Canon  Westcott,  for  "isolating  Christianity  from  all 
the  other  religious  phenomena  of  the  world,"  is  the 
only  reference  made  in  the  book  to  the  best  represen- 
tatives of  learned  Christian  thought  in  England. 

This,  indeed,  is  only  in  harmony  with  the  tone  of 
supercilious  superiority  which  the  authoress  assumes 
throughout  in  reference  to  orthodox  Christians. 
Christianity  is  spoken  of  as  "  a  religion  which  can  no 
longer  be  believed."  Its  solemn  and  sacred  records 
of  miraculous  action  and  divine  life  are  patronisingly 
and  contemptuously  referred  to  again  and  again  as 
"  fairy  tales "  ;  and  in  the  conversation  in  which  the 
Squire,  in  response  to  Elsmere's  own  request,  reveals 
the  whole  extent  of  his  destructive  criticism,  we  are 
told  that  a  man  who  regards  Christian  legend — that 
is,  the  miraculous  narratives  of  the  ]S"ew  Testament — 


250  APPENDIX. 

as  part  of  history  proper,  ought  to  be  regarded  as 
"  losing  caste,"  and  "  falling  iioso  facto  out  of  court  with 
men  of  education."  We  cannot  but  say  that,  at  a 
time  when  some  of  the  first  scholars  in  Europe  are 
Christian  bishops  and  divines,  when  the  President  of 
the  Eoyal  Society  and  other  eminent  men  of  science, 
besides  statesmen  and  men  of  letters  of  the  first 
ability,  are  decided  believers  in  the  old  Christian 
creed,  language  of  this  kind  approaches  insolence,  and 
deserves,  even  in  a  lady,  severe  resentment.  Elsmere 
himself  is,  in  fact,  to  a  great  extent  the  victim  not, 
as  Mrs  Ward  would  represent,  of  truth,  but  of  a 
superlative  conceit.  After  a  few  months'  study  of 
early  French  history,  a  few  montlis'  intercourse  with 
a  Germanised  scholar  whom  he  knows  and  confesses 
to  be  heartless  and  irreligious,  if  not  immoral,  he 
jumps  to  the  conclusion  that  he  has  seen  through  the 
fallacies  not  merely  of  Canon  Westcott  and  the  ortho- 
dox apologists,  but  of  eighteen  centuries  of  the  best 
life  and  the  finest  intellects  in  the  world,  that  he  can 
brush  away  St  Paul's  evidence  as  that  of  a  "  fiery 
fallible  man  of  genius,"  and  can  even — most  shocking 
of  all  the  scenes  in  the  book — imagine  our  Saviour 
speaking  to  him  "  in  the  guise  of  common  manhood, 
laden  like  his  fellows  with  the  pathetic  weight  of 
human  weakness  and  human  ignorance,"  and  con- 
fessing to  him — to  Elsmere — that  "  I  had  my  dreams, 
my  delusions,  with  my  fellows."  Mrs  Ward  might  at 
least  have  spared  her  readers,  and  the  character  of  her 
hero,  that  insult  to  the  Christians'  Lord  and  God. 
But  the  possibility  of  such  a  scene  is  the  measure  of 
Elsmere's  appreciation,  and  Mrs  Ward's  appreciation, 
of  the  real  considerations  on  which  this  controversy 
turns.      We  shall  recur  to  this  point  in  the   sequel. 


ROBERT    ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.       251 

Meanwhile  it  may  be  acknowledged  to  be  quite  in 
keeping  with  the  character,  that  a  man  who  regards 
Jesus  Christ  as  having  been  subject  to  delusions, 
from  which  he  himself  is  emancipated,  should  not 
think  it  worth  while  to  seek  advice  in  his  doubts 
from  wise  and  good  men  who  still  regard  the  Saviour 
as  Truth  incarnate. 

But  let  us  turn  more  particularly  to  the  alleged 
reasons  for  Elsmere's  abjuration.  He  is  represented 
as  mainly  influenced  in  his  resolve  to  take  Holy 
Orders  by  the  general  religious  impression  made  upon 
him  by  the  associations  of  Oxford. 

"  The  religious  air,  the  solemn  beauty  of  the  place  itself, 
its  innumerable  associations  with  an  organised  and  venerable 
faith,  the  great  pubUc  functions  and  expressions  of  that 
faith,  possessed  the  boy's  imagination  more  and  more.  As 
he  sat  in  the  undergraduates'  gallery  at  St  Mary's  on  the 
Sundays,  when  the  great  High  Church  preacher  of  the 
moment  occupied  the  pulpit,  and  looked  down  on  the 
crowded  building,  full  of  grave  black-gowned  figures,  and 
framed  in  one  continuous  belt  of  closely  packed  boyish 
faces ;  as  he  listened  to  the  preacher's  vibrating  voice,  rising 
and  falling  with  the  orator's  instinct  for  musical  effect ;  or 
as  he  stood  up  with  the  great  surrounding  body  of  under- 
graduates to  send  the  melody  of  some  Latin  hymn  rolling 
into  the  far  recesses  of  the  choir;  the  sight  and  the  ex- 
perience touched  his  inmost  feeling,  and  satisfied  all  the 
poetical  and  dramatic  instincts  of  a  passionate  nature.  The 
system  behind  the  sight  took  stronger  and  stronger  hold 
upon  him ;  he  began  to  wish  ardently  and  continuously  to 
become  a  part  of  it,  to  cast  in  his  lot  definitely  with  it." — 
Vol.  i.  p.  122. 

This  is  not  a  very  deep  foundation  for  a  resolve  to 
enter  the  ministry,  or  for  Christian  belief  itself ;  and 
when  he  announces    his   resolve    to    his    two    tutors, 


252  APPENDIX. 

Mr  Grey  and  Mr  Langham,  the  seeds  of  his  future 
doubts  are  at  once  sown.  Mr  Grey,  when  told  of  his 
intention, 

"said  nothing  for  a  while.  .  .  .  'You  feel  no  difficulties 
in  the  way  1 '  he  asked  at  last,  with  a  certain  quick  hrusque- 
ness  of  manner.  '  JSTo,'  said  Eobert,  eagerly,  '  I  never  had 
any.  Perhaps,'  he  added  with  a  sudden  humility,  *it  is 
because  I  have  never  gone  deep  enough.  What  I  believe 
might  have  been  worth  more  if  I  had  had  more  struggle  ; 
but  it  has  all  seemed  so  plain.'  .  .  .  '  You  will  probably  be 
very  happy  in  the  life,'  said  Mr  Grey.  '  The  Church  wants 
men  of  your  sort.' " 

When  he  tells  Langham,  the  tutor's  observation  is — 

" '  Well,  after  all,  the  difficulty  lies  in  preaching  any- 
thing; one  may  as  well  preach  a  respectable  mythology  as 
anything  else.'  'What  do  you  mean  by  a  mythology?' 
cried  Eobert,  hotly.  '  Simply  ideas,  or  experiences,  per- 
sonified,' said  Langham,  puffing  away.  '  I  take  it  they  are 
the  subject-matter  of  all  theologies.'  'I  don't  understand 
you,'  said  Eobert,  flushing.  '  To  the  Christian,  facts  have 
been  the  medium  by  which  ideas  the  world  could  not 
otherwise  have  come  at  have  been  communicated  to  man. 
Christian  theology  is  a  system  of  ideas  indeed,  but  of  ideas 
realised,  made  manifest  in  facts.'  Langham  looked  at  him 
for  a  moment,  undecided;  then  that  suppressed  irritation 
we  have  already  spoken  of  broke  through.  '  How  do  you 
know  they  are  facts  1 '  he  said,  drily. 

"The  younger  man  took  up  the  challenge  with  all  his 
natural  eagerness,  and  the  conversation  resolved  itself  into 
a  discussion  of  Christian  evidences.  Or  rather  Eobert  held 
forth,  and  Langham  kept  him  going  by  an  occasional  re- 
mark which  acted  like  the  prick  of  a  spur.  The  tutor's 
psychological  curiosity  was  soon  satisfied.  He  declared  to 
himself  that  the  intellect  had  precious  little  to  do  with 
Elsmere's  Christianity.  He  had  got  hold  of  all  the  stock 
apologetic  arguments,  and  used  them,  his  companion  ad- 
mitted, with  ability  and  ingenuity.     But  they  were  merely 


ROBERT   ELSMERE   AND    CHRISTIANITY.       253 

the  outworks  of  the  citadel.  The  inmost  fortress  was  held 
by  something  wholly  distinct  from  intellectual  conviction — 
by  moral  passion,  by  love,  by  feeling,  by  that  mysticism, 
in  short,  which  no  healthy  youth  should  be  without.  '  He 
imagines  he  has  satisfied  his  intellect,'  was  the  inward 
comment  of  one  of  the  most  melancholy  of  sceptics,  '  and 
he  has  never  so  much  as  exerted  it.  What  a  brute  I  am 
to  i^rotest ! '" 

We  entirely  agree  with  the  concluding  observation ; 
and  we  must  needs  say  in  passing,  that  the  conversa- 
tions we  have  quoted  afford  a  melancholy  illustration 
of  the  conduct  which  we  must  suppose  is  deemed 
justifiable  by  tutors  at  Oxford  in  the  present  day. 
Christianity  is  not  only  regarded  at  the  college  de- 
scribed in  this  book  as  an  open  question ;  but  when 
a  talented  undergraduate  announces  his  intention  of 
entering  Holy  Orders,  its  tutors  think  it  consistent 
with  their  duty  to  insinuate  difficulties,  like  Mr  Grey, 
or  like  Mr  Langham  to  tell  him  that  the  faith  he 
intends  to  preach  is  only  a  respectable  mythology. 
We  know  what  may  be  said  on  the  other  side.  To 
please  people  who  were  willing  to  pay  the  price  of 
unchristianising  a  University  for  a  Liberal  or  Non- 
conformist triumph,  the  government  and  discipline 
of  Oxford  are  now  committed  to  men  who  are  emanci- 
pated from  obligation  to  any  form  of  belief.  It  may 
be  said  that  Langham  was  within  his  rights  in  holding 
his  tutorship  as  an  infidel,  and  that  if  he  was  an 
honest  infidel,  he  was  doing  no  more  than  was  natural, 
if  not  his  duty,  in  trying  to  save  his  pupil  from  the 
perversities  of  belief.  We  only  say  that  it  is  time 
English  parents  should  thoroughly  understand  that 
this  is  the  condition  to  which  the  Universities  have 
been  brought,  and  that  if  they  send  their  sons  to  a 


254  APPENDIX. 

college  like  St  Anselm's — to  any  college  which  does 
not  practically  establish  a  test  for  itself,  like  Keble — 
they  expose  them,  in  the  immaturity  and  excitability 
of  their  early  manhood,  to  have  their  Christian  faith 
deliberately  undermined  by  the  maturer  intellectual 
force  of  a  philosophical  deist  like  Mr  Grey,  or  a 
hopeless  sceptic  like  Mr  Langham.  Mrs  Ward  knows 
Oxford  well.  We  have  not  observed  that  any  protest 
has  been  raised  against  her  representation  of  a  college 
in  the  University,  with  its  vivid  portraiture  of  more 
than  one  well-known  character.  This  must  be  taken 
as  an  Oxford  picture  of  Oxford  influences  in  a  great 
college,  and  we  must  needs  say  that  a  course  of 
legislation  which  has  placed  such  men  as  Mr  Grey 
and  Mr  Langham  in  the  position  of  tutors  and  guides 
of  undergraduates  is  a  scandalous  diversion  of  endow- 
ments left  for  Christian  purposes.  Grey's  question 
whether  he  had  no  difficulties  is  recalled  by  Elsmere 
long  afterwards,  when  he  is  announcing  to  his  old 
tutor  his  renunciation  of  his  ministry ;  and  Langham, 
in  his  subsequent  intercourse,  exerts  a  steady  pressure 
in  a  sceptical  direction.  Mr  Grey,  of  course,  when 
Elsmere's  final  confession  is  made,  welcomes  him, 
with  open  arms,  as  a  convert  to  the  final  form  of 
philosophical  religion.  This  professor  is  described  as 
a  person  of  extraordinary  moral  excellence,  and  he 
certainly  possessed  great  qualities  of  mind  and  heart. 
But  a  system  under  which  a  man  undermines  the 
Christian  faith  while  using  Christian  phraseology,  and 
saps  the  belief  of  impressible  undergraduates  while 
outwardly  conforming  to  the  Christian  observances  of 
a  university  like  Oxford,  appears  to  us,  to  say  the 
least,  of  an  equivocal  character,  both  morally  and 
intellectually. 


EGBERT   ELSMERE   AND    CHRISTIANITY.       255 

But  the  seeds  of  infidelity,  thus  sown,  would  prob- 
ably have  lain  dormant,  notwithstanding  an  occasional 
stimulus  from  Langham,  had  it  not  been  for  the  in- 
direct influence  of  another  piece  of  advice  from  Mr 
Grey.  He  had  said  to  Elsmere,  "  Half  the  day  you 
will  be  king  of  your  world ;  the  other  half  be  the 
slave  of  something  which  will  take  you  out  of  your 
world  into  the  general  world."  He  was,  moreover, 
clear  that  history  was  especially  valuable,  especially 
necessary  to  a  clergyman.  So  Elsmere  took  his  Einal 
Schools  History  for  a  basis,  and  started  on  the  Empire, 
especially  the  decay  of  the  Empire  ;  and  was  thus  led 
on  into  ''  the  makings  of  France."  This  study,  helped 
by  an  observation  of  Langham's  which  anticipated 
the  subsequent  influence  of  the  Squire,  is  represented 
as  suggesting  to  his  mind  a  general  distrust  of  past 
historical  evidence.  He  is  especially  startled  one 
day  by  a  passage  in  the  life  of  a  saint  who  had  been 
bishop  of  a  diocese  in  Southern  France,  the  biography 
being  written  by  his  successor.  "  It  was,  of  course, 
a  tissue  of  marvels,"  and  one  of  them  is  narrated, 
of  a  kind  with  which  every  educated  reader  is  familiar 
in  the  Lives  of  the  Saints.  When  he  reads  the  story 
to  Catherine,  she  exclaims,  very  naturally,  "  What 
extraordinary  superstition !  A  bishop,  Eobert,  and 
an  educated  man  ? "  But  this  is  too  simple  an  ob- 
servation for  Elsmere.  "  But  it  is  the  whole  habit  of 
mind,"  he  said  half  to  himself,  "that  is  so  astounding. 
No  one  escapes  it.  The  whole  age  really  is  non- 
sane."  This  apprehension  of  the  superstitious  cred- 
ulity which  prevailed  at  the  commencement  of  the 
Dark  Ages  is  described  as  leading  to  "  the  gradual 
enlargement  of  the  mind's  horizons ; "  so  that  he 
comes  to  see  "  how  miracle  is  manufactured,  to  recog- 


256  APPENDIX. 

nise  in  it  merely  a  natural,  inevitable  outgrowth  of 
human  testimony  in  its  pre-scientific  stages." 

But  he  does  not  reach  these  far-reaching  conclusions 
from  his  studies  of  the  history  of  early  France  without 
a  good  deal  of  further  stimulus  from  the  Squire.  This 
man,  Eoger  Wendover,  is  a  cold-blooded  cynical  scholar, 
the  owner  of  a  magnificent  library,  who  seems  to  have 
had  no  other  interest  in  life  but  to  read  German 
criticism  till  he  is  himself  sick  of  it,  and  who  is 
celebrated  for  having  "  launched  into  a  startled  and 
protesting  England  "  a  book  in  which — 

"  each  stronghold  of  English  popular  religion  had  been 
assailed  in  turn,  at  a  time  when  English  orthodoxy  was  a 
far  more  formidable  thing  than  it  is  now.  The  Pentateuch, 
the  Prophets,  the  Gospels,  St  Paul,  Tradition,  the  Fathers, 
Protestantism  and  Justification  by  Faith,  the  Eigliteenth 
Century,  the  Broad  Church  movement,  Anglican  theology, 
— the  Squire  had  his  say  about  them  all." 

In  short,  he  is  a  kind  of  combination  of  the  late  Mr 
Matthew  Arnold,  the  late  Mr  Greg,  and  the  author  of 
'  Supernatural  Eeligion/  Elsmere's  acquaintance  with 
this  man  began  with  a  bitter  quarrel,  in  consequence  of 
the  Squire's  scandalous  and  heartless  neglect  of  some 
rotten  cottage  property  in  the  parish.  For  a  while  he 
sends  back  the  books  the  Squire  had  lent  him,  and 
all  communication  between  them  ceases.  But  a  dread- 
ful epidemic  breaks  out  in  the  cottages  ;  the  Squire  is 
induced  by  the  old  doctor  of  the  family  to  go  and  see 
them  ;  finds  Elsmere  there  nursing  his  parishioners 
through  the  fever  with  admirable  devotion ;  stiffly 
acknowledges  himself  in  the  wrong,  and  invites  ob- 
livion for  the  past  and  better  relations  for  the  future. 
Elsmere  meanwhile  has  been  reading  the  Squire's  books, 


ROBERT    ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.       257 

and  is  fascinated  by  the  man's  learning,  though  ap- 
palled for  the  moment  by  the  doubts  they  forced  upon 
him.  But  curiosity  prevails  over  repulsion.  He  ac- 
cepts the  Squire's  advances  ;  discusses  his  historical 
studies  with  him ;  and  everything  in  the  Squire's 
character  is  soon  forgotten  but  his  mysterious  and  un- 
fathomable learning.  A  close  intercourse  and  inter- 
change of  thought  ensues,  abhorrent  to  Catherine's 
mind,  repulsive,  some  would  have  thought,  to  a  clergy- 
man of  sensitive  feeling.  But  the  Squire  is  allowed,  or 
rather  encouraged,  to  press  nearer  and  nearer  with  his 
critical  processes  to  the  citadel  of  Elsmere's  faith,  till 
one  day  he  is  practically  invited  to  walk  in  and 
develop  all  his  forces.  "  Well,  if  he  would  have  it," 
thought  the  Squire,  "  let  him  have  it ; "  and  then 
follows  a  conversation  of  which  the  following  passages 
give  the  cardinal  points,  and  those  on  which  we  have 
chiefly  to  comment : — 

"Testimony,  like  every  other  human  product,  has  developed 
Man's  power  of  apprehending  and  recording  what  he  sees  and 
hears  has  grown  from  less  to  more,  from  weaker  to  stronger, 
like  any  other  of  his  faculties.  What  one  wants  is  the 
ordered  proof  of  this,  and  it  can  be  got  from  history  and 
experience. 

"  To  plunge  into  the  Christian  period  without  having 
first  cleared  the  mind  as  to  what  is  meant  in  history  and 
literature  by  the  '  critical  method,'  which  in  history  may  be 
defined  as  '  the  science  of  what  is  credible,'  and  in  literature 
as  '  the  science  of  what  is  rational,'  is  to  invite  fiasco.  .  .  . 
Suppose,  for  instance,  before  I  begin  to  deal  wdth  the 
Christian  story,  and  the  earliest  Christian  development, 
I  try  to  make  out  beforehand  what  are  the  moulds,  the 
channels,  into  which  the  testimony  of  the  time  must  run.  I 
look  for  these  moulds,  of  course,  in  the  dominant  ideals,  the 
intellectual  preconceptions  and  preoccupations  existing  when 
the  period  begins. 

R 


258  APPENDIX. 

'*In  the  first  place,  I  shall  find  present  in  the  age  which 
saw  the  birth  of  Christianity,  as  in  so  man}^  other  ages,  a 
universal  preconception  in  favour  of  miracle — that  is  to  say, 
of  deviations  from  the  common  norm  of  experience,  govern- 
ing the  work  of  all  men  of  all  schools.  Very  well,  allow  for 
it  then.  Read  the  testimony  of  the  period  in  the  light  of  it. 
Be  prepared  for  inevitable  difi'erences  between  it  and  the 
testimony  of  your  own  day.  The  witness  of  the  time  is  not 
true,  nor,  in  the  strict  sense,  false.  It  is  merely  incompetent, 
half-trained,  pre-scientific,  but  all  through  perfectly  natural. 
The  wonder  would  have  been  to  have  had  a  life  of  Christ 
without  miracles.  The  air  teems  with  them.  The  East  i& 
full  of  Messiahs.  Even  a  Tacitus  is  superstitious.  Even  a 
Vespasian  works  miracles.  Even  a  Nero  cannot  die,  but  fifty 
years  after  his  death  is  still  looked  for  as  the  inaugurator  of 
a  millennium  of  horror.  The  Resurrection  is  partly  invented,, 
partly  imagined,  partly  ideally  true — in  any  case  wholly 
intelligible  and  natural,  as  a  product  of  the  age,  when  once 
you  have  the  key  of  that  age. 

"  In  the  next  place,  look  for  the  preconceptions  that  have 
a  definite  historical  origin  ;  those,  for  instance,  flowing  from 
the  pre-Christian,  apocalyptic  literature  of  the  Jews.  .  .  . 
Examine  your  synoptic  Gospels,  your  Gospel  of  St  John^ 
your  Apocalypse,  in  the  light  of  these.  You  have  no  other 
chance  of  understanding  them.  But  so  examined,  they  fall 
into  place,  become  explicable  and  rational ;  such  material  as 
science  can  make  full  use  of.  The  doctrine  of  the  Divinity 
of  Christ,  Christian  Eschatology,  and  Christian  views  of 
Prophecy,  will  also  have  found  their  place  in  a  sound 
historical  scheme. 

"  It  is  discreditable  now  for  the  man  of  intelligence  ta 
refuse  to  read  his  Livy  in  the  light  of  his  Mommsen.  My 
object  has  been  to  help  in  making  it  discreditable  to  him  to 
refuse  to  read  his  Christian  documents  in  the  light  of  a 
trained  scientific  criticism." 

Such  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  argument  by 
which  Elsmere  is  finally  induced  to  relinquish  his  faith 
in  the  Christian  creed.     It  had  been  suggested  at  an 


ROBERT   ELSMERE   AND    CHRISTIANITY.       259 

earlier  stage  by  Langham,  in  reference  to  Elsmere's 
study  of  early  French  history : — 

"  History,"  he  had  said,  "  depends  on  testimony.  What 
is  the  nature  and  value  of  testimony  at  given  times  ?  In 
other  words,  did  the  man  of  the  third  century  understand, 
or  report,  or  interpret  facts  in  the  same  way  as  the  man  of 
the  sixteenth  or  the  nineteenth  % " 

In  this  question,  Langham  said  to  himself,  lies  "  the 
whole  of  orthodox  Christianity."  The  Squire  accord- 
ingly spends  his  life  in  writing  a  book,  of  which  he 
leaves  the  manuscript  to  Elsmere,  described  as  'A 
History  of  Testimony,'  w^hich  is  to  "  harry  the  enemy 
after  his  death,"  but  which  remains,  we  fancy,  in  the 
same  land  of  romance  as  Elsmere's  Brotherhood. 

Now  to  what  does  all  this  large  vague  talk  amount  ? 
It  seems  to  us  to  involve  a  mass  of  fallacies  which  the 
authoress  has  taken  no  pains  to  disentangle.  We  can 
hardly  suppose  she  means  that  all  testimony,  without 
exception,  becomes  less  trustworthy  as  we  go  further 
back  in  history.  Of  course,  in  proportion  to  the  scant- 
iness of  written  documents  or  monuments,  traditional 
history,  such  as  is  recorded  by  Livy,  was  liable  to  be 
distorted  by  popular  superstition  or  imagination.  But 
would  Mrs  Ward  venture  to  maintain  that  Thucydides, 
for  instance,  is  a  less  trustworthy  historian,  for  events 
which  he  had  direct  means  of  observing,  than  Claren- 
don ?  or  Tacitus  than  Macaulay  ?  In  this  form  the 
suggestion  becomes  preposterous,  and  is  reduced  to  one 
of  those  vague  generalisations  which  are  the  vice  of 
the  present  day,  alike  in  philosophy,  in  science,  or  in 
history,  and  which  are  only  intended  to  prepare  the 
mind  for  some  convenient  minor  premiss  which  would 
not  be  so  easily  accepted  if  stated  by  itself.     If  the 


260  APPENDIX. 

attack  on  Christianity  has  really  been  forced  back  on 
a  proposition,  that  all  testimony  previous  to  the  nine- 
teenth century  is  comparatively  untrustworthy,  it  will, 
we  think,  be  sufficiently  evident  that  it  is  argumen- 
tatively  defeated.  No  comparison  is  adequate  to  such 
an  argument,  but  that  of  pulling  down  your  house 
over  your  head  to  put  out  your  candle.  In  order  to 
extinguish  the  light  of  the  Christian  faith,  the  whole 
edifice  of  past  history  is  to  have  the  ground  cut  from 
under  it.  The  simple  truth  is  that  past  testimony 
requires  sifting  in  the  same  way  as  modern  testimony, 
and  the  true  art  of  criticism  is  to  sift  it  step  by  step. 
With  what  success  this  can  be  done  is  proved  by  the 
great  investigations  into  the  history  of  Greece  and 
Eome  which  have  distinguished  the  scholarship  of  this 
century.  But  the  work  of  Niebuhr,  or  Mommsen,  or 
Grote,  or  Curtius,  has  not  been  based  upon  a  general 
demurrer  to  all  past  testimony,  but  upon  a  careful 
discrimination  between  direct  and  original  testimony 
and  that  which  was  merely  traditional  and  secondary. 
There  are  characters  and  transactions  in  past  history 
which  stand  out  just  as  clearly  and  certainly  on  the 
historical  stage  as  those  of  the  present  day ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  are  events  and  characters  and 
transactions  passing  at  this  moment  all  around  us, 
respecting  which  persons  of  the  highest  position  and 
experience  are  giving  each  other  the  lie  every  day,  to 
the  infinite  confusion  of  public  life.  Indeed  there  is  a 
peculiar  definiteness  and  vividness  about  some  of  the 
records  of  the  past,  whether  in  Greece,  Eome,  or  the 
middle  ages,  or,  we  will  add,  the  Scriptures,  which  is 
due  to  a  greater  simplicity  and  directness  of  observa- 
tion than  is  possible  in  a  more  sophisticated  age.  To 
take   one   illustration   bearing   upon   our   main   topic, 


ROBERT    ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.       261 

there  are  points  of  unquestioned  and  minute  accuracy 
in  St  Mark,  and  vivid  reflections  of  scenes  and  features 
and  words  in  St  Matthew,  St  Luke,  and  St  John, 
which  compel  even  such  a  writer  as  M.  Eenan  to 
admit  that  we  have  before  us  the  very  photographs,  as 
it  were,  of  what  occurred.  The  Squire's  book,  however, 
has  never  been  published,  and  until  it  is  we  shall  take 
the  liberty  of  leaving  this  extravagant  generalisation 
alone. 

The  fact  is,  Mrs  Ward  means  something  very  much 
more  practical,  and  the  minor  premiss  which  her 
puppets  slip  in  is  the  only  one  really  needed  for  her 
argument.  What  the  Squire  and  Elsmere  object  to  is 
not  testimony  in  general,  but  testimony  to  miraculous 
events.  It  is  "  legend  "  which  is  the  Squire's  bugbear, 
and  in  the  critical  moments  of  Elsmere's  struggle  with 
himself,  as  in  the  address  in  which  he  expounds  his 
new  religion  to  his  East  End  audience,  the  catchword 
of  the  modern  sceptic  is  emphasised  in  italics.  "  Mir- 
acles do  not  ha'pjpen.''  It  is  a  matter  of  no  little 
patience  to  see  this  glib  fallacy  repeated,  with  a 
sort  of  juggle  of  phraseology  of  which  a  writer  on 
so  serious  a  subject  should  be  ashamed.  "  Miracles 
do  not  happen ! "  Not  now,  certainly.  That  is  the 
very  case  of  a  reasonable  Christianity.  The  Christian 
writer  says  that  events  which  do  not  happen  now, 
did  happen  once.  Oh  !  but,  says  the  objector,  "  they 
do  not  happen  now."  But  that  is  precisely  what  the 
Christian  says,  and  is  the  very  basis  of  his  argument. 
He  contends  that  the  occurrence  of  certain  abnormal 
events,  in  connection  with  a  very  extraordinary  per- 
son, reveal  that  person's  real  nature  and  character. 
But  again,  says  the  objector,  they  do  not  occur  in 
connection    with    other    persons,    ordinary    or    extra- 


262  APPENDIX. 

ordinary.  That  is  not  inconsistent  with  what  the 
Christian  says.  It  is  the  very  point  he  is  contending 
for.  If  it  were  the  case  that  miracles  do  happen 
in  ordinary  times  and  under  ordinary  circumstances, 
if  they  were  within  human  command  and  observation 
as  ordinary  matters  of  experiment,  they  would  not 
be  miracles  in  the  sense  now  in  question.  The  whole 
question  is  not  whether  miracles  do  or  do  not  happen, 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  juggling  phrase,  but 
whether  certain  specific  miracles  did  happen  at  a 
certain  specific  time,  at  tlie  command  of  a  certain 
specific  person  or  persons ;  and  this  is  a  matter,  not 
of  the  general  question  of  the  validity  of  testimony 
throughout  the  history  of  the  human  race,  but  of 
certain  specific  testimony. 

It  would  seem  worth  observing  in  passing,  that  a 
man  who  appeals  to  experience  or  testimony  to  prove 
that  miracles  do  not  happen,  is  by  his  own  act  debarred 
from  refusing  to  consider  testimony  that  they  have  hap- 
pened. If  he  relies  on  testimony  to  prove  the  negative, 
he  cannot  refuse  to  hear  testimony  to  prove  the  positive. 
If  a  writer  lays  it  down  a  ^priori  that  miracles  can- 
not happen,  as  Germans  like  Strauss  and  Baur  hon- 
estly do,  and  as  it  seems  Mr  Grey  did,  of  course  all 
argument  on  the  evidence  is  precluded,  and  nothing 
remains  but  to  invent,  as  Strauss  and  Baur  did,  what 
seemed  to  them  the  least  improbable  explanation  of 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles.  But  when  a  writer  says, 
like  M.  Eenan  and  Mrs  Ward,  that  "  it  is  impossible 
to  believe  in  that  of  which  the  world  offers  no  ex- 
perimental trace,"  ^  his  argument  is  an  argument  from 
experience,  and  experience  is  a  matter  of  testimony. 
The  preposterous  attempt   of   Mrs   Ward   to   support 

^  Vie  de  Jdsus,  fifteenth  edition,  p.  ix. 


EGBERT   ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.       263 

Elsmere's  case  by  a  general  invalidation  of  testimony 
is,  in  fact,  a  practical  admission  that  for  Englishmen, 
after  all,  this  whole  question  is  one  of  evidence.  An 
Oxford  professor,  like  Mr  Grey  or  Green,  may  "  stick 
to  the  a  'priori  impossibility  of  miracles,"  but  that 
requires  an  habituation  to  German  air.  The  question 
for  English  men  and  women  presents  itself  in  the 
plain  and  practical  shape,  whether  there  is,  or  is  not, 
sufficient  testimony  to  prove  the  occurrence  of  the 
miraculous  events  involved  in  the  Christian  Creed  ? 

ISTow  in  dealing  with  this  issue,  what  we  have  to 
point  out  is  that  Mrs  Ward  has  acted  the  part  of 
a  sort  of  Homeric  Aphrodite  to  her  hero,  and  carried 
him  off'  from  contact  with  the  actual  steel  of  Christian 
argument  under  the  cloud  of  her  vague  depreciation 
of  all  testimony,  and  by  the  glamour  of  the  fallacious 
example  she  has  drawn  from  early  Erench  history. 
As  to  the  latter  point,  we  can  only  marvel  at  the 
unhistorical  procedure  of  this  devotee  of  the  historical 
method.  Because  Gregory  of  Tours  or  the  early 
medieval  biographers  were  superstitious,  therefore  St 
Peter,  St  John,  and  St  Paul  are  liable  to  "  non-sane  " 
illusions !  There  is  a  fine  passage  in  which  Mrs 
Ward  describes  the  extraordinary  contrast  to  modern 
experience  presented  to  the  mind  of  the  historical 
student  who  first  plunges  into  the  materials  of  medi- 
eval history : — 

"  Ultimately,  of  course,  he  sees  that  these  men  and 
women  whose  letters  and  biographies,  whose  creeds  and 
general  conceptions  he  is  investigating,  are  in  truth  his 
ancestors,  bone  of  his  bone,  flesh  of  his  flesh.  But  at 
first  the  student  who  goes  back,  say,  in  the  history  of 
Europe,  behind  the  Renaissance  or  behind  the  Crusades 
into  the  actual  deposits  of  the  past,  is  often  struck  with 


264  APPENDIX. 

a  kind  of  vertigo.  The  men  and  women  whom  he  has 
dragged  forth  into  the  light  of  his  own  mind  are  to  him 
like  some  strange  puppet-show.  They  are  called  by  names 
he  knows — kings,  bishops,  judges,  poets,  priests,  men  of 
letters — but  what  a  gulf  between  him  and  them  !  What 
motives,  what  beliefs,  what  embryonic  j)rocesses  of  thought 
and  morals,  what  bizarre  combinations  of  ignorance  and 
knowledge,  of  the  highest  sanctity  with  the  lowest  cre- 
dulity or  falsehood ;  what  extraordinary  prepossessions, 
bom  with  a  man  and  tainting  his  whole  ways  of  seeing 
and  thinking  from  childhood  to  the  grave  !  Amid  all  the 
intellectual  dislocation  of  the  spectacle,  indeed,  he  perceives 
certain  Greeks  and  certain  Latins  who  represent  a  forward 
strain,  who  belong  as  it  seems  to  a  world  of  their  own,  a 
world  ahead  of  them.  To  them  he  stretches  out  his  hand. 
'  Tom,'  he  says  to  them,  '  though  your  priests  spoke  to 
you  not  of  Christ,  but  of  Zeus  and  Artemis,  You  are 
really  my  kindred ! '  But  intellectually  they  stand  alone. 
Around  them,  after  them,  for  long  ages,  the  world  '  spake 
as  a  child,  felt  as  a  child,  understood  as  a  child.' " 

We  demur  to  the  supposition  of  a  nearer  sense  of 
kindred,  in  any  other  than  a  limited  intellectual  sense, 
being  felt  towards  Greeks  and  Latins  than  towards 
Christians.  But  passing  this  by,  the  description  in 
this  passage  of  the  confused,  barbaric,  embryonic  ways 
of  thought  and  feeling  in  the  early  middle  ages  is 
striking  and  just.  But  what  is  to  be  said  of  the 
historic  method,  which  sus^crests  the  transference  of 
this  picture  to  the  period  when  the  Christian  story  was 
first  written  and  preached,  or  to  the  writers  by  whom 
it  is  recorded  ?  It  was  in  a  world  peopled  by  those 
very  Greeks  and  Latins  in  whom  Mrs  Ward  claims 
her  intellectual  kindred  that  Paul  was  in  great  measure 
educated,  and  that  he  chiefly  travelled,  preached,  and 
died.  It  was  to  Eomans,  Corinthians,  Ephesians, 
Philippians  —  not    to    Jews    only,   but    especially   to 


EGBERT    ELSMERE   AND    CHRISTIANITY.        265 

Gentiles,  at  Eome,  Corinth,  Ephesus,  Philippi — that 
he  preached  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  and  it  is  in 
letters  to  them,  of  the  genuineness  of  some  at  least 
of  which  no  doubt  was  entertained,  even  by  the  leader 
of  the  Tubingen  school,  that  he  records  the  fact  of 
miracles  being  wrought  among  them.  Turning  to 
Judaea,  if  we  find  superstition  there,  we  find  also  an 
unbridled  scepticism.  It  was  a  dominant  party  in  the 
Jewish  society  of  the  day  who  said  that  "  there  is 
no  resurrection,  neither  angel  nor  spirit,"  and  the 
Pharisees,  who  confessed  both,  were  bitter  in  their 
denial  of  our  Lord's  resurrection.  They  were  keen 
disputants,  and  capable  of  criticising  mercilessly  a 
"  legend  "  which  was  fatal  to  their  authority.  It  was 
in  this  atmosphere  —  an  atmosphere  of  the  highest 
Greek  and  Eoman  cultivation  on  the  one  hand,  and  of 
bigoted  Jewish  incredulity  on  the  other,  and  not  in 
the  untutored  world  of  early  Teutonic  mystery  and 
imagination — that  the  Christian  story  was  told  and 
recorded.  The  sixth  and  seventh  centuries,  in  which 
Elsmere  loses  his  head,  are  ages  with  very  little 
literature  worthy  of  the  name.  The  iirst  and  second 
centuries  are  the  ages  of  some  of  the  most  distinguished, 
and  we  may  add  some  of  the  most  sceptical,  writers  in 
Greek  and  Eoman  literature  ;  and  in  Jewish  literature 
the  Apostles  are  the  contemporaries  of  Philo.  Even  on 
the  ground  of  this  general  comparison,  what  can  be 
more  extravagantly  unhistorical  than  for  a  man  to 
allow  his  mind  to  be  disturbed  as  to  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  records  in  the  first  century  by  the  superstition 
of  chroniclers  in  the  sixth  or  seventh  ?  We  must  say 
once  more,  that  the  antagonists  of  the  Christian  faith 
must  be  driven  to  bay  when  they  take  refuge  in  such 
topsy-turvy  confusions  of  historical  circumstances. 


266  APPENDIX. 

The  question  is  not  to  be  dealt  with  by  these  vague 
propositions  or  confused  analogies.  The  real  issue, 
which  is  never  faced  throughout  the  book,  is,  What 
is  the  real  value  of  the  testimony  afforded  in  the  New 
Testament  to  the  events  which  it  records  ?  In  plain 
words,  What  is  the  value  of  the  testimony  of  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  John,  Paul,  Peter,  and  James,  as  there 
given  ?  They  tell  a  simple,  straightforward  story, 
perfectly  consistent  in  at  least  its  main  features,  what- 
ever difficulties  may  be  raised  about  some  details,  as 
may  always  be  done  in  respect  to  matters  of  fact 
similarly  narrated  to  us.  There  has  been  a  great  deal 
of  beating  about  the  bush  on  both  sides  in  the  course 
of  this  great  controversy ;  and  while  the  critical  in- 
vestigations of  the  past  generation  were  in  progress, 
it  was  perhaps  inevitable,  as  well  as  useful,  that  the 
combatants  on  both  sides  should  endeavour  to  main- 
tain their  respective  positions  by  arguments  from 
probabilities.  Christian  apologists  have  endeavoured 
to  show,  and  we  think  with  singular  success,  that  the 
truths  and  facts  asserted  by  Christianity  harmonise 
profoundly  with  the  needs  and  the  nature  of  man,  and 
that  there  is  no  a  'priori  incredibility  in  such  events 
as  the  Christian  creed  records.  Sceptical  writers  have 
endeavoured,  we  think  with  signal  failure,  to  show 
that  the  needs  of  mankind  and  the  strain  of  life  can 
be  met  sufficiently  without  any  such  supernatural  aid. 
But  all  these  arguments,  however  useful  in  their 
place,  must  sooner  or  later  give  way  to  the  plain 
question  of  fact ;  and  we  think  that  time  has  come. 
Have  we,  or  have  we  not,  ground  for  believing  the 
narratives  and  assertions  contained  in  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles  ? 

Now  in  this  final  and  cardinal  issue  there  are  two 


ROBERT    ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.         267 

distinct  points,  confused  by  Mrs  Ward  in  the  general 
haze  which  surrounds  all  her  treatment  of  the  subject. 
The  first  is,  Were  the  books  written  by  the  persons 
whose  names  they  bear  ?  The  second  is,  Whether,  if 
so,  the  evidence  of  these  persons  is  trustworthy?  Now 
we  have  shown  in  more  than  one  previous  article  of 
this  '  Eeview '  -^  that  the  settled  result  of  the  criticism 
of  the  last  fifty  years  is  to  answer  the  former  question 
— that  of  the  authenticity  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament — substantially  in  the  affirmative.  We  do 
not  say  that  no  reserves  are  to  be  made  in  respect  to 
the  views  of  particular  critics.  But  M.  Eenan  is  a 
sufficient  witness  to  the  fact  that  the  case  against  the 
authenticity  of  the  New  Testament  books  has,  in  the 
main,  completely  broken  down.  He  is  no  believer  in 
miracle,  and  is  so  far  a  hostile  witness.  No  one  can 
doubt  that  he  is  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  course 
of  German  and  French  criticism.  But  he  admits,  first 
of  all,  the  authenticity  of  the  majority  of  the  Epistles 
of  St  Paul ;  ^  secondly,^  that  the  Gospel  of  St  Luke 
and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  proceeded,  in  their 
present  form,  from  the  pen  of  St  Luke  the  physician, 
the  companion  of  St  Paul;  thirdly,  that  in  St  Matthew 
we  have  the  very  words  of  Jesus,  bright  and  flashing 
as  when  first  spoken ;  fourthly,  that  in  St  Mark  we 
have  the  personal  reminiscences  of  an  eye-witness,  who 
may  well,  as  tradition  says,  have  been  St  Peter; 
fifthly,^  that  the  evidence  for  the  authenticity  of  the 
Gospel  of  St  John  would  be  convincing  to  him  if  he 
could  only  overcome  his  repugnance  to  the  discourses 

1  The  Quarterly  Review,  vol.  151,  pp.  352-384  ;  vol.  163,  pp.  460-489. 
Reprinted  in  this  volume  at  pp.  289  and  118. 

-  St  Paul,  pp.  v-vi.  ^  Vie  de  Jdsus,  Introduction. 

^  Ibid.,  Appendix. 


268  APPENDIX. 

of  our  Lord  there  recorded.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  these  Gospels  and  Epistles  came  to  this  long 
critical  trial  in  unquestioned  possession  of  the  ground 
for  seventeen  centuries.  They  were  believed  to  be 
written  by  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  for  the 
same  reason  that  classical  books  were  believed  to  be 
written  by  the  authors  to  whom  they  were  respectively 
attributed — namely,  because  they  were  so  attributed, 
and  no  one  had  denied  it.  The  denial  was  made  not 
in  the  interests  of  historical  criticism,  but  in  the 
interests  of  philosophical  theory.  Strauss  and  Baur 
said  miracles  cannot  have  happened,  and  therefore 
they  set  themselves  to  explain  away  the  evidence  that 
they  had.  But  with  this  enormous  presumption  of 
unquestioned  reception  behind  the  Gospels  and  Epis- 
tles, the  onus  prohandi  was  on  the  critics.  They  set 
themselves  to  disprove  their  authenticity,  and  by  M. 
Eenan's  confession  they  have,  at  least  in  all  important 
points,  failed.  We  quote  M.  Eenan  simply  as  a  con- 
venient and  sufhcient  test  of  the  conclusiveness  of  the 
critical  evidence  which  has  been  adduced  against  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures.  Whatever  else  he  may 
be,  he  is  a  sceptic,  and  he  is  also  a  man  of  the  widest 
learning  on  this  subject;  and  we  are  justified  in  saying 
that  critical  objections  which  seem  to  him  ineffectual 
may  be  regarded  as  having  failed.  But  we  have 
shown  in  one  of  the  articles  we  have  referred  to  in 
this  '  Eeview '  that  similar  admissions  are  made  even 
by  representative  German  critics  of  the  Eationalist 
school.-^ 

We  think  it  necessary  to  insist  on  this  first  point 
in  the  Christian  argument,  as  it  is  naturally  obscured 
by  those  who  would  discredit  the  evidence.      Professor 

1  See  pp.  150-158. 


ROBERT   ELSMERE   AND    CHRISTIANITY.        269 

Huxley,  in  a  recent  essay,  speaks  of  the  Gospels  as 
"  documents  of  unknown  date  and  of  unknown  author- 
ship." As  he  allows  himself  in  the  same  passage^  to 
say  that  the  belief  of  Christians  in  a  miracle  attested 
by  these  documents  is  immoral,  we  shall  not  scruple 
to  say  that  such  a  description  of  the  Gospels,  by  a 
writer  who  at  all  events  has  attended  sufficiently  to 
the  subject  to  deem  himself  qualified  to  lecture  bishops 
and  divines,  is  nothing  less  than  immoral.  We  greatly 
regret  to  be  obliged  to  apply  a  similar  observation  to 
some  recent  statements,  by  Mr  Justice  Stephen,  in  the 
same  magazine.^  We  cannot,  indeed,  mention  the 
name  of  Mr  Justice  Stephen  in  this  connection  with- 
out saying  that  the  part  he  takes  in  this  controversy 
is  a  grave  abuse  of  his  position  as  a  judge.  It  is  a 
recognised  consequence  of  a  judge's  position  that  he 
should  abstain  from  speaking  or  acting  to  the  prejudice 
of  established  institutions.  But  so  long,  at  all  events, 
as  the  Church  is  established,  Christianity  is  the  estab- 
lished religion  of  the  country.  Justice,  in  particular, 
is  administered  under  its  express  authority,  and  when 
Mr  Justice  Stephen  administers  oaths  in  court,  he  is 
appealing  to  the  sanctions  of  the  religion  which  per- 
haps he  has  himself  been  undermining,  by  one  of  his 
articles,  in  the  mind  of  the  witness  before  him.  That 
these  attacks  upon  our  religion,  moreover,  should  be 
made  publicly  by  a  person  holding  the  great  office  of 
a  judge  is  a  circumstance  which  cannot  but  gravely, 
and  unfairly,  prejudice  the  popular  mind.  Mr  Justice 
Stephen  cannot  publicly  engage  in  this  controversy  as 
a  mere  individual,  exertinsj  no  other  influence  than 
that  of  his  arguments.      By  large  classes  in  the  com- 

1  The  Nineteenth  Century,  November  1887,  p.  632. 

2  October  1887,  p.  585. 


270  APPENDIX. 

munity  he  cannot  but  be  regarded  as  speaking  as  a 
judge,  and  he  thus  throws  into  the  scale  the  weight 
and  authority  of  an  office,  with  which  he  was  invested 
for  most  responsible  duties  of  an  entirely  distinct 
nature.  If  he  feels  too  strongly  on  the  subject  to  be 
able  to  restrain  his  pen,  let  him  write,  as  he  has 
written  before,  and  as  he  has  abundant  opportunities 
of  doing,  anonymously.  Above  all,  when  he  writes 
with  his  name  and  official  title,  he  might  be  expected 
to  explain  the  state  of  the  controversy  with  judicial 
impartiality,  and  not  make  such  statements  as  the  fol- 
lowing, in  the  face  of  such  admissions  by  M.  Eenan  as 
we  have  quoted.  He  says  in  the  article  just  referred 
to: — 

"  Are  not  these  observations  well  founded  1  At  the  very 
lowest,  are  they  not  continually  made  in  good  faith  by  com- 
petent persons  1     .     .     . 

"  It  is  wholly  uncertain  who  were  authors  of  the  Gospels, 
and  when  they  were  written.  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke 
must  have  been  either  copied,  with  additions  and  modifica- 
tions, from  each  other,  or  from  some  earlier  original  which 
has  been  lost.  There  is  no  proof  that  the  Gospel  of  John 
was  written  by  John  the  apostle.  There  are  very  good 
grounds  for  thinking  it  was  not.  .  .  .  The  statements  of  the 
Gospels  are  therefore  uncertified  hearsay." 

We  cannot  refuse  Mr  Justice  Stephen  the  character 
of  a  competent  person,  or  doubt  his  good  faith ;  but 
we  assert  that,  in  view  of  the  admissions  of  learned 
sceptical  critics  which  we  have  quoted,  these  observa- 
tions cannot  be  called  "  well  founded  " ;  that,  on  the 
contrary,  no  man  who  has  access  to  the  best  criticism 
of  France  and  Germany,  to  say  nothing  of  England,  is 
justified  in  ignoring  the  fact  that  the  balance  of  the 
best  judgment,  on  critical  grounds  alone,  after  a  pro- 


EGBERT   ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.        271 

longed  and  merciless  controversy,  is  decidedly  against 
them ;  and  for  a  man  in  Mr  Justice  Stephen's  position 
to  be  scattering  them  broadcast  is  inexcusable.  We 
once  heard  a  venerable  judge  asked  what  he  thought 
of  a  brother  member  of  the  bench  having  contributed 
an  article  to  a  magazine  upon  a  current  controversy — 
a  legal  one,  if  we  rightly  remember.  "  I  think,"  said 
the  old  man,  with  the  grave  emphasis  of  former 
manners,  "  that  it  is  an  impiety."  What  he  would 
have  said  if  he  had  been  asked  what  he  thought  of  a 
judge  publishing  in  a  magazine  exploded  criticisms 
against  Christianity,  we  will  not  try  to  imagine.  For 
the  present  we  will  be  content  with  saying  that  it  is 
unjudicial. 

Unless,  in  a  word,  further  documentary  evidence  of 
a  wholly  unexpected,  and,  we  may  add,  inconceivable 
kind,  should  come  to  light,  the  special  issue  between 
Christianity  and  its  opponents,  which  has  mainly 
occupied  the  past  fifty  years,  must  be  regarded  as 
brought  to  a  close.  No  adequate  evidence  has  been 
produced  to  invalidate  the  unbroken  tradition  of  the 
Church  respecting  the  authenticity  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  as  that  tradition  existed,  for  instance, 
in  the  days  of  Eusebius.  On  the  contrary,  much  has 
been  brought  to  light  which  confirms  it ;  almost  every 
new  documentary  discovery  having  brought  additional 
confirm atioii  to  it,  and  having  refuted  some  confident 
assumption  of  negative  criticism.  We  are,  therefore, 
in  possession  of  direct  contemporary  evidence  to  the 
facts  of  the  Christian  creed,  and  we  have  to  consider 
only  the  second  of  the  two  questions  we  proposed — 
namely,  whether  this  evidence  is  credible.  It  will  be 
observed  that,  this  being  the  case,  we  are  practically 
brought  back  to  the  position  from  which  Paley  argued  ; 


272  APPENDIX. 

and  his  argument,  so  far  as  it  goes,  reassumes  its 
former  significance  and  importance.  There  is,  he 
undertook  to   show, 

"  satisfactory  evidence  that  many,  professing  to  be  original 
witnesses  of  the  Christian  miracles,  passed  their  lives  in 
labours,  dangers,  and  sufferings,  voluntarily  undergone  in 
attestation  of  the  accounts  which  they  delivered,  and  solely 
in  consequence  of  their  belief  of  those  accounts ;  and  that 
they  also  submitted,  from  the  same  motives,  to  new  rules  of 
conduct ; "  and,  on  the  other  hand,  "  that  there  is  not  satis- 
factory evidence  that  persons  pretending  to  be  original  wit- 
nesses of  any  other  similar  miracles  have  acted  in  the  same 
manner,  in  attestation  of  the  accounts  which  they  delivered, 
and  solely  in  consequence  of  their  belief  of  the  truth  of  those 
accounts." 

These  arguments  will  still  be  to  many  minds  per- 
fectly decisive,  when  once  doubt  has  been  removed,  as 
we  have  explained,  respecting  the  authenticity  of  docu- 
mentary sources ;  and  whether  the  argument  be  or  be 
not  sufficient  to  carry  the  whole  case,  it  possesses  at 
any  rate  a  weight  and  importance  which  should  claim 
for  it  more  attention  than  it  has  of  late  received.  The 
facts  which  Paley  marshals  with  such  skill  respecting 
the  plain  matter-of-fact  testimony,  borne  at  the  cost 
of  cruel  suffering,  in  the  full  light  of  day,  by  the  first 
preachers  of  Christianity,  and  borne  not  to  theories  or 
opinions,  but  to  matters  of  experience,  are  at  least  un- 
paralleled in  the  annals  of  any  other  religion ;  and 
they  do  suffice  to  sustain  the  assumption  to  which 
Kobert  Elsmere  objects,  that  the  case  is  an  isolated  one. 
To  assume  beforehand  that  because  a  vast  number  of 
miraculous  stories  are  legendary,  therefore  all  such 
stories  are  of  the  same  kind,  is  one  of  those  fallacies 
of  hasty  generalisation  which  are  characteristic  of  our 


ROBERT    ELSMERE   AND    CHRISTIANITY.        273 

clay,  and  which  are  peculiarly  discreditable  to  an  age 
which  boasts  of  its  scientific  virtues.  This  universal 
prevalence,  at  one  time  or  another,  of  belief  in  the 
supernatural  or  miraculous  is,  indeed,  capable  of  being 
applied  in  exactly  the  opposite  direction.  If  mankind 
have  been  so  universally  prone  to  the  belief,  is  it 
probable  that  there  was  never  any  foundation  for  it  ? 
If  miraculous  events  and  supernatural  interpositions 
have  ever  taken  place,  it  is  very  conceivable  that  the 
human  mind  was  so  impressed  by  them  as  to  be  ready 
to  surmise  their  occurrence  at  any  time,  and  to  gene- 
ralise in  favour  of  the  miraculous  with  the  same  has- 
tiness with  which  modern  sceptics  and  philosophers 
generalise  against  it.  But  if  no  such  things  ever 
occurred  within  the  whole  range  of  human  experience, 
it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  conceive,  especially  on  the 
grounds  of  a  philosophy  of  evolution,  how  they  ever 
came  to  be  thought  of.  But,  however  this  may  be, 
Paley's  argument,  even  to  those  who  do  not  regard  it 
as  conclusive,  ougjht  to  be  enoucjh  to  show  that  the 
case  of  Christianity  is  a  unique  one,  and  that  the 
vague  presumptions  against  the  miraculous,  of  which 
Mrs  Ward's  heroes  make  so  much,  are  entirely  beside 
the  mark.  Whether  the  testimony  be  sufficient  to 
bear  the  weight  of  the  extraordinary  events  which  it 
alleges  is  a  further  question ;  but  that  it  is  not  to  be 
explained  away  by  the  general  tendency  of  the  human 
mind,  at  that  time  or  at  others,  to  imagine  what  is 
supernatural,  ought  to  be  beyond  question. 

For  the  purpose,  however,  of  giving  this  testimony 
its  full  weight  at  the  present  day,  it  has  perhaps 
become  desirable  to  bring  into  prominence  some 
further,  and  at  the  same  time  simpler,  considerations 
than  those  which  were  chiefly  suited  to  Paley's  age. 

S 


274  APPENDIX. 

We  refer  to  the  inherent  moral  value  of  the  testimony 
of  the  evangelists  and  apostles.  We  have  not  in 
view,  for  this  purpose,  merely  those  general  moral 
influences  of  Christ  and  Christianity  on  which  much 
stress  has  of  late  been  often  laid.  In  a  very  able 
series  of  Bampton  Lectures,  preached  in  1877,  Pre- 
bendary Eow  threw  the  main  weight  of  the  Christian 
argument  upon  the  supremacy  of  the  character  and 
influence  of  our  Lord,  as  illustrated  by  experience 
and  history,  combined  with  the  great  array  of  evidence 
which  can  be  adduced  to  the  cardinal  miracle  of  the 
Eesurrection.  These  moral  miracles,  combined  with 
the  one  great  physical  miracle,  being  recognised,  the 
series  of  minor  miracles  recorded  in  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment fall  into  harmony  with  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  and  acquire  a  credibility  which,  under  the  scien- 
tific influences  of  the  present  day,  they  would  otherwise 
lack.  There  appears  great  weight  in  this  line  of 
argument,  and  it  is  no  doubt  specially  appropriate  to 
the  time  and  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended.  It 
has  satisfied  some  minds,  who  feel  that  evidence  which 
would  not  suffice  to  prove  miraculous  occurrences 
under  ordinary  circumstances,  may  well  be  accepted 
as  sufficient  when  the  circumstances  can  be  shown 
independently  to  be  extraordinary.  At  the  same  time 
we  are  disposed  to  think  it  an  argument  of  somewhat 
too  elaborate  and  indirect  a  nature  for  the  ordinary 
working  purposes  of  Christian  faith.  Belief  in  Christ, 
in  the  full  meaning  of  the  Christian  creed,  was  not 
meant  to  depend,  and  never  has  depended,  in  the  case 
of  the  great  mass  of  believers,  upon  arguments  which 
require  for  their  appreciation  a  wide  grasp  of  religious 
and  historical  observation.  We  want  evidence  which 
"  comes   home  to   men's   business    and   bosoms,"   and 


ROBERT   ELSMERE   AND    CHRISTIANITY.        275 

which    can   be    stated   in    plain   words,  and  in   brief 
space. 

Moreover,  after  all,  a  general  defence  of  the  credi- 
bility of  the  miraculous  stories  is  not  sufficient  to 
meet  the  case.  It  is  of  great  value  to  establish  this 
general  possibility  of  credence ;  but  even  when  it  has 
been  established,  we  want  reasons  for  believing,  not 
merely  that  such  things  might  have  taken  place,  but 
that  we  can  confidently  accept  the  accounts  before  us 
as  trustworthy  records  of  what  did  take  place.  The 
difficulty  may  be  illustrated  by  putting  the  case  in  a 
form  which,  as  we  have  shown,  may  now  be  treated  as 
purely  hypothetical.  Supposing  it  could  have  been 
shown  by  criticism  that  the  Gospels  were  all,  as  Baur 
would  have  had  it,  second-century  compositions  with 
a  polemical  purpose,  it  would  still  have  been  true, 
as  Mr  Eow's  argument  contends,  that  considerations 
quite  independent  of  this  literary  criticism  proved  the 
possibility  of  the  evangelical  narratives  being  true ; 
but  we  think  that  with  impartial  minds  the  grounds 
for  believing  those  narratives  to  be  not  only  possibly 
but  actually  true  would  have  been  grievously  weakened. 
It  appears  to  us  to  be  a  perfectly  legitimate  demand, 
from  which  Christians  ought  not  to  shrink,  that  the 
direct  evidence  for  occurrences  of  a  miraculous  char- 
acter ought  to  be  of  far  greater  weight  than  that 
which  is  sufficient  for  proving  the  occurrence  of  events 
within  ordinary  experience.  It  is,  indeed,  neither  fair 
nor  customary  to  require  evidence  of  legal  strictness 
to  ordinary  historical  events.  But  there  is  one  rule 
of  legal  evidence  of  which  the  justice  in  historical 
investigation  seems  indisputable.  It  is  that  a  wit- 
ness's evidence  becomes  doubtful  in  proportion  as  it  is 
out  of  harmony  with  ordinary  human  experience,  and 


276  APPENDIX. 

that  it  requires  proportionate  corroboration.  In  the 
valuable  discussion  which  Professor  Greenleaf,  late  of 
Harvard  University,  has  prefixed  to  his  '  Testimony 
of  the  Evangelists  examined  by  the  Eules  of  Evidence 
administered  in  Courts  of  Justice/  he  states  the  rule 
in  the  following  terms,  with  the  authority  of  an 
approved  writer  on  the  Law  of  Evidence : — 

"The  credit  due  to  the  testimony  of  witnesses  depends 
upon,  firstly,  their  honesty ;  secondly,  their  ability ;  thirdly, 
their  number  and  the  consistency  of  their  testimony; 
fourthly,  the  conformity  of  their  testimony  with  experience  ; 
and  fifthly,  the  coincidence  of  their  testimony  with  collateral 
circumstances." 

Now,  the  miraculous  narratives  in  the  Gospels  are 
certainly  out  of  the  range  not  only  of  any  other 
recorded  experience,  but  we  may  go  further  and  say 
that  they  are  beyond  the  range  of  any  recorded 
imagination.  We  are  not  sure,  indeed,  that  their 
very  wonder  in  this  respect  is  not  a  strong  argument 
in  their  favour.  It  is  not  merely  that  a  few  wonders 
are  specially  described,  as  is  the  case  in  ordinary 
legends ;  but  a  person  is  described  as  moving  through 
sick  and  afflicted  multitudes,  and  dispensing  health, 
life,  and  soundness  of  body  and  mind  at  every  step. 
The  very  touch  of  his  garment  is  physical  life,  and  his 
word  is  spiritual  regeneration.  It  might  almost  be 
contended  that  such  a  vision  authenticates  itself;  for 
it  is  beyond  the  dreams  of  mere  human  hope  and 
imagination.  However,  to  pass  this  by,  it  is,  we 
think,  perfectly  true  that  such  a  mass  of  miraculous 
manifestations  as  are  recorded  in  the  Gospels — and 
attempts  to  minimise  them  are  mere  evasions — re- 
quires testimony  unique  in  its  character  and  weight. 
For  our  part,  we  are  not  disposed   to  question  even 


EGBERT   ELSMERE   AND    CHRISTIANITY.        277 

Hume's  statement  of  the  requirement — that  the  testi- 
mony to  establish  such  miracles  should  be  of  such  a 
character  that  its  falsehood  would  be  more  miraculous 
than  the  miracles  it  attests.  At  all  events,  we  are 
quite  confident  that  the  Christian  evidence  will  bear 
this  test ;  and  there  is,  we  think,  little  difficulty  in 
explaining  the  reason. 

This  reason  lies  simply  in  the  fact  that  there  never 
have  been  writers  who  produce  on  fair  minds  such  an 
intense  impression  of  truthfulness,  soundness,  sim- 
plicity, and  moral  force  as  the  evangelists  and  the 
apostolic  writers.  Here,  in  the  first  place,  are  four 
witnesses  standing  up  in  the  face  of  the  world  and 
telling  substantially  the  same  story,  with  the  most 
perfect  quietness,  solemnity,  and  confidence  ;  recording 
words  which  would  pronounce  the  most  awful  con- 
demnation on  themselves  for  any  deviation  from  truth, 
ending  with  the  narrative  of  the  most  affecting  self- 
sacrifice  in  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness  which 
is  known  to  mankind.  The  four  Gospels  are  a  con- 
centrated blaze  of  moral  light,  by  which  the  heart  of 
man  has  been  illuminated  ever  since.  They  exhibit, 
at  the  same  time,  wherever  they  can  be  tested,  minute 
accuracy  of  observation  with  respect  to  the  ordinary 
circumstances  of  life,  and  an  absence  of  any  sign  of 
mental  excitement  or  disturbance.  We  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  say  that  it  would  be  something  more  wonderful 
than  the  miracles  themselves  that  such  evidence — 
the  testimony  from  such  witnesses — should  be  mere 
legendary  imagination. 

Or  take  again  the  case  of  St  Paul.  It  is  sig- 
nificant that  it  is  found  essential  to  any  argument 
like  that  of  Mrs  Ward  to  disparage  St  Paul's  mental 
capacity.       Of  course  his   evidence   to  the  Ptesurrec- 


278  APPENDIX. 

tion  is  of  peculiar  weight.  He  was  in  the  confidence 
of  the  Jewish  rulers  in  the  days  when  he  per- 
secuted the  Church,  and  knew  therefore  the  full 
strength  of  the  case  which  they  could  urge  against 
the  Eesurrection,  and  nevertheless  he  devoted  his 
life  to  a  belief  in  Christ  which  rested  on  it.  His 
acknowledged  Epistles,  moreover,  afford  direct  docu- 
mentary evidence  at  first  hand  to  the  occurrence,  and 
even  the  prevalence,  of  miraculous  powers  in  the  early 
Church — the  prevalence  of  such  powers  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  be  liable  to  abuse,  and  to  need,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Corinthians,  restraint  and  repression.  It 
becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  discredit  him  as  a 
witness ;  and  accordingly  the  Squire  is  described  as 
furnishing  Eobert  Elsmere  with  "  a  short  but  masterly 
analysis  of  the  mental  habits  and  idiosyncrasies  of 
St  Paul,  tb  jpropos  of  St  Paul's  witness  to  the  Eesur- 
rection." He  is  depicted  as  "  the  fiery,  fallible  man 
of  genius — so  weak  logically,  so  strong  in  poetry,  in 
rhetoric,  in  moral  passion  " — t  sort  of  Eobert  Elsmere, 
in  fact,  according  to  the  best  construction  which  can 
be  put  on  Mrs  Ward's  portraiture.  We  confess  we 
cannot  descend  to  the  impertinence  of  defending  St 
Paul  against  this  superfine  criticism  of  German  pro- 
fessors, of  a  dainty  English  man  of  letters  like  Mr 
Matthew  Arnold,  and  of  a  lady  who  measures  human 
nature  by  the  standard  of  the  late  Professor  Green. 
St  Paul  had  better  be  left  to  describe  himself. 

"  Whereinsoever,"  he  says,  "  any  is  bold,  (I  speak 
foolishly,)  I  am  bold  also.  Are  they  Hebrews'?  so  am  I. 
Are  they  Israelites  %  so  am  I.  Are  they  the  seed  of 
Abraham?  so  am  I.  Are  they  ministers  of  Christ?  (I 
speak  as  a  fool,)  I  am  more :  in  labours  more  abundant, 
in    stripes  above   measure,   in    prisons    more    frequent,    in 


ROBERT   ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.        279 

deaths  oft.  Of  the  Jews  five  times  received  I  forty  stripes 
save  one.  Thrice  was  I  beaten  with  rods,  once  was  I 
stoned,  thrice  I  suffered  shipwreck,  a  night  and  a  day  I 
have  been  in  the  deep;  in  journeyings  often,  in  perils  of 
waters,  in  perils  of  robbers,  in  perils  by  mine  own  country- 
men, in  perils  by  the  heathen,  in  perils  in  the  wilderness, 
in  perils  in  the  sea,  in  perils  among  false  brethren ;  in 
weariness  and  painfulness,  in  watchings  often,  in  hunger 
and  thirst,  in  fastings  often,  in  cold  and  nakedness.  Be- 
sides those  things  that  are  without,  that  which  cometh 
upon  me  daily,  the  care  of  all  the  churches.  Who  is  weak, 
and  I  am  not  weak  *?  who  is  ofi'ended,  and  I  burn  not  ? " — 
2  Cor.  xi.  21-29. 

Or  again : — 

"In  all  things  approving  ourselves  as  the  ministers  of 
God,  in  much  patience,  in  afflictions,  in  necessities,  in  dis- 
tresses, in  stripes,  in  imprisonments,  in  tumults,  in  labours, 
in  watchings,  in  fastings ;  by  pureness,  by  knowledge,  by 
long-suffering,  by  kindness,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  love 
unfeigned,  by  the  word  of  truth,  by  the  power  of  God,  by 
the  armour  of  righteousness  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the 
left."— 2  Cor.  vi.  4-7. 

A  man  of  genius,  certainly ;  but  this  appeal,  in  the 
face  of  those  who  knew  him  well,  to  his  physical 
endurance,  strength  of  mind,  and  moral  force,  is  more 
than  sufficient  answer  to  critics  who  would  disparage 
him  as  an  excitable  enthusiast.  This  is  a  question  to 
which  the  maxim  eminently  applies,  "  Securus  judicat 
orbis  terrarum."  It  is  sufficient  to  leave  the  world  to 
judge  between  St  Paul  on  the  one  hand  and  the  cynical 
critic  or  the  self-satisfied  man  of  letters  on  the  other. 
Of  the  various  impertinencies  perpetrated  by  the  late 
Mr  Matthew  Arnold,  one  of  the  worst  was  his  cool 
assumption  of  superiority  to  St  Paul,  and  the  con- 
fidence with  which  he   subjected   the   apostle's  com- 


280  APPENDIX. 

positions  to  a  condescending  criticism,  and  told  him 
with  a  benignant  air  of  patronage  how  he  had  failed 
to  do  justice  to  his  own  arguments,  and  that  what 
the  good  man  really  meant  to  say  was  so  and  so.  The 
simple  fact  of  the  case  is,  that  while  men  and  women 
are  criticising  St  Paul,  or  patronising  him,  or  dis- 
paraging him,  he  goes  on  telling  the  world  his  own 
witness  in  his  own  words ;  and  those  who  have  ears 
to  hear,  let  them  hear  him.  In  point  of  fact,  they  do 
hear  him,  together  with  his  fellow-witnesses  in  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles.  To  the  end  of  time  there  will  be 
minds  which  no  testimony  will  convince.  You  cannot 
turn  probable  evidence  into  demonstrative.  But  in 
all  ages,  and  in  our  own  as  much  as  in  any  other,  the 
cardinal  evidence  for  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  story, 
and  the  chief  support  on  which  it  rests,  are  found  in 
the  overwhelming  sense  of  truth,  of  veracity,  of  cer- 
tainty, produced  by  the  simple  testimony  of  the 
Evangelists  and  Apostles.  The  New  Testament  is 
in  fact  its  own  evidence,  and  it  forces  credence  from 
true  and  unprejudiced  minds  by  its  own  inherent 
power.  There  are,  and  it  is  to  be  feared  there  always 
will  be,  some  minds  which  are  closed,  either  by  in- 
tellectual or  moral  preconceptions,  against  its  light. 
But  it  rests  securely  on  the  appeal  of  its  great  Author : 
"  If  I  say  the  truth,  why  do  ye  not  believe  me  ? " 

In  fact,  as  we  have  already  noticed,  it  is  Elsmere's 
weakened  sense  of  the  personal  supremacy  of  our  Lord 
which  is  the  decisive  element  in  his  lapse,  and  Mrs 
Ward  is  clear-sighted  enough  to  bring  this  point  out 
with  remarkable  force.  In  the  chapter  headed  "  Crisis," 
Elsmere's  decision  is  precipitated  by  a  conversation  in 
which  an  enthusiastic  young  Roman  Catholic  maintains 
a  vehement  argument  in  defence  of  the  Christian  faith 


ROBERT    ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.        281 

with  the  Squire,  and  he  is  startled,  on  reflection,  to 
find  how  little  sympathy  he  had  felt  with  the  Chris- 
tian argument: — 

"  Then  gradually  it  became  clear  to  him.  A  month  ago 
every  word  of  that  hectic  young  pleader  for  Christ  and  the 
Christian  certainties  would  have  roused  within  him  a  leap- 
ing, passionate  sympathy — the  heart's  yearning  assent,  even 
when  the  intellect  was  most  perplexed.  Now  that  inmost 
strand  had  given  way.  Suddenly,  the  disintegrating  force 
he  had  been  so  pitifully,  so  blindly,  holding  at  bay,  had 
penetrated  once  for  all  into  the  sanctuary.  What  had 
happened  to  him  had  been  the  first  real  failure  oi  feeling,  the 
first  treachery  of  the  heart.  .  .  .  His  soul  had  been  dead 
withm  him." 

The  italics  are  the  author's,  and  they  are  significant. 
Elsmere  has  lost,  or  has  never  possessed  in  sufficient 
force,  the  sense  of  the  unique  ascendency  of  our  Lord 
over  the  heart  as  well  as  the  intellect,  and  the  personal 
authority  on  which  faith  ultimately  rests  is  gone. 
"  Every  human  soul,"  he  says  to  himself  afterwards, 
"  in  which  the  voice  of  God  makes  itself  felt,  enjoys, 
"  equally  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  divine  Sonship, 
"  and  '  miracles  do  not  hapimi !  '  " — above  all,  there  has 
never  been  the  moral  miracle  of  one  in  human  form, 
free  from  the  moral  weakness  and  the  fallibility  of 
mankind.  So,  as  he  walks  home  by  night  from  his 
visit  to  Oxford  to  seek  advice  from  Mr  Grey,  or  rather 
support  in  the  decision  he  has  made,  the  Master,  to 
whom  he  formerly  rendered  the  homage  and  absolute 
submission  of  an  imperfect  human  being  to  his  Lord 
and  God,  "  moves  towards  him  in  the  guise  of  common 
manhood,  laden  like  his  fellows  with  the  pathetic 
weight  of  human  weakness  and  human  ignorance." 
There  is  the  key  to  the  whole  story  and  to  the  whole 
controversy.     With  equal  clearness  of  view  Mrs  Ward 


282  APPENDIX. 

has  described  it  as  the  secret  of  Catherine's  faith,  that 
nothing  can  shake  her  absolute  allegiance  and  worship 
towards  her  Master.  When  a  man  can  be  brought  to 
think  that  Jesus  Christ  "  had  his  dreams,  his  delusions, 
with  his  fellows,"  and  that  St  Paul  was  no  more  than 
"  a  fallible  man  of  genius,"  "  logically  weak,"  the 
foundations  of  his  faith  in  Christianity  are  gone.  But 
as  long  as  men  and  women  are  awed  into  submission, 
love,  and  trust  by  that  Divine  voice,  reduced  to  lay 
their  hands  upon  their  mouths  in  that  supreme 
Presence,  conscious  in  themselves  of  a  sinfulness,  a 
weakness  and  ignorance,  under  which,  but  for  His 
gracious  invitation,  they  would  hardly  dare  lift  up 
their  eyes  to  Him,  much  less  criticise,  or,  worst  of  all, 
assume  a  capacity  to  approve  Him — as  long  as  that 
Sacred  Figure  stands  before  us  in  living  lineaments  in 
the  Gospels,  while  His  Apostles,  in  Epistles  which  are 
instinct  in  every  line  with  truth  and  soberness,  bear 
their  solemn  testimony  to  Him,  so  long  will  the  Christ- 
ian faith  live  and  grow.  If  critics  and  sceptics  raise 
objections,  it  is  the  duty  of  Christian  apologists  to  offer 
answers  and  explanations.  But  it  is  the  Gospels  them- 
selves which  in  the  end  refute  the  critics,  and  the 
testimony  of  the  Apostles  wins  the  verdict  of  the  world 
by  its  own  inherent  weight.  The  object  of  Christian 
apologists  should  be  chiefly  to  remove  difficulties  which 
prevent  these  witnesses  obtaining  a  hearing,  or  which 
prejudice  their  testimony.  If  Elsmere  had  consulted 
his  wife  in  time,  she  could,  after  all,  have  given  him 
the  very  help  he  needed.  She  might  have  revived  in 
his  heart  the  submissive  allegiance  due  to  her  Master 
and  his,  and  have  quickened  his  sense  of  the  intense 
moral  and  spiritual  claim  of  St  Paul  and  his  fellow- 
witnesses. 


ROBERT    ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.        283 

It  remains  to  say  something  of  the  "  new  religion," 
the  reconstructed  faith,  which  Elsmere  is  represented 
as  endeavouring  to  substitute  in  the  place  of  the  old 
faith.  If,  indeed,  the  attempted  demolition  be  vain,  it 
is  in  one  sense  waste  of  time  to  consider  the  proposed 
substitute.  But  some  brief  consideration  of  it  may 
be  worth  while,  as  serving  to  illustrate  further  the 
essential  hoUowness  of  the  whole  process  of  thought 
which  is  exhibited  with  such  self-confidence.  Very 
few  observations  upon  it,  however,  will  be  necessary. 
The  first  is  that  there  is  not  a  single  good  object  pro- 
posed by  the  New  Brotherhood  which  could  not  be, 
and  which  is  not,  attained  by  the  Christian  Church. 
Elsmere's  personal  devotion  to  the  moral  welfare  and 
elevation  of  the  artisans  of  the  East  End  is  admirable. 
But  it  is  exhibited  every  day  by  Christian  clergymen ; 
and  the  main  difference  is,  that  the  Church  has  pro- 
duced results,  again  and  again,  such  as  are  imagined  in 
Elsmere's  case,  and  is  producing  them  at  this  moment, 
while  no  similar  results  have  been  produced  by  any 
other  agency.  So  far  as  the  influence  of  this  book 
goes,  it  would  break  the  springs  of  the  charitable  de- 
votion by  which  the  darkest  places  of  the  earth,  at 
home  and  abroad,  are  actually  being  illuminated  and 
purified,  and  it  offers  us  nothing  in  exchange  which 
has  a  real  existence.  "  Bella  geri  'placuit  nullos  hdbitura 
triumplios."  Create  a  new  Brotherhood,  if  you  please, 
based  on  a  reconstructed  Christianity,  and  show  it  to 
us  at  work,  and  you  will  have  some  right  to  ask  men 
to  listen  to  you.  But  it  is,  after  all,  a  reckless  levity 
which  does  its  worst  to  cut  at  the  roots  of  the  best 
religious  life  of  the  world — the  life  of  women  like 
Catherine  Elsmere,  for  example — and  can  offer  noth- 
ing in  exchange   but  a   mere  romance.      If   any  one 


284  APPENDIX. 

wants  to  establish  a  new  religion,  let  him  actually 
establish  it.  That  is  the  only  reasonable  way  of  sup- 
planting the  old — the  only  way  consistent  with  a  due 
sense  of  the  blessings  conferred  by  the  old  one  on 
feeble  and  suffering  humanity.  If  Elsmere's  Brother- 
hood were  a  living  force,  there  might  be  some  justifica- 
tion for  this  book.  As  it  is  not — there  may  be  ex- 
cuses for  the  lady  who  writes  it,  but  justification  there 
is  none. 

But  it  must  further  be  observed  that  the  principles 
and  practices  of  the  New  Brotherhood  are  themselves, 
in  an  extravagant  degree,  of  that  unhistorical  and 
arbitrary  character  which  the  authoress  would  attri- 
bute to  Christianity.  In  the  new  faith,  we  are  told 
(vol.  iii.  p.  359),  there  are  only  two  articles — 

"  In  thee,  0  Eternal,  have  I  put  my  trust," 
and 

"  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me." 

So  that  out  of  the  whole  mass  of  our  Lord's  sayings 
recorded  in  the  Gospels,  the  words,  "  This  do  in  re- 
membrance of  me,"  are  selected  as  the  distinctive 
article  of  the  new  faith ;  for  the  only  significance 
of  the  first  "  article "  consists  in  its  being  severed 
from  its  foundations  in  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
revelations.  To  what  purpose,  moreover,  is  this  say- 
ing applied  ?  We  are  told  that  it  is  used  in  "  what 
is  perhaps  the  most  characteristic,  the  most  binding 
practice  of  the  New  Brotherhood.  It  is  that  which 
has  raised  most  angry  comment,  cries  of  'profanity,' 
'wanton  insult,'  and  what  not."  An  example  is 
given  in  the  scene  which  follows.  One  of  Elsmere's 
chief  supporters  is  calling  on  a  member  of  the 
Brotherhood,  who  is  a  carpenter.     This  man  and  his 


ROBERT    ELSMERE    AND    CHRISTIANITY.        285 

family  are   standing   at   their   dinner-table,   about   to 
commence  the  meal : — 

"  The  father  lifted  his  right  hand. 

"  The  Master  said,  '  This  do  in  rememhrance  of  me.' 

"  The  children  stooped  for  a  moment  in  silence,  then  the 
youngest  said  slowly,  in  a  little  softened  Cockney  voice, 
that  touched  me  extraordinarily,  '  Jesus,  we  rememher  Thee 
alioays.'' 

"  It  was  the  appointed  response." 

]S"ow,  apart  from  the  question  of  "  profanity,"  what 
it  is  most  pertinent  to  ask  is,  What  foundation  there 
is  for  prescribing  such  a  practice,  and  the  use  of  these 
words,  for  such  a  purpose  ?  The  only  evidence  we 
have  of  our  Lord  having  said  "  This  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me "  testifies  to  His  having  used  the 
words  as  the  sequel  of  others ;  and  these  others 
describe  what  was  to  be  done  in  remembrance  of 
Him.  If  there  be  one  record  of  our  Lord's  acts 
and  sayings  in  the  Gospels  which  has  an  especial 
strength  of  attestation,  it  is  the  account  of  the 
institution  of  the  Last  Supper.  In  that  account  the 
words  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me "  refer  to 
the  solemn  distribution  of  bread  and  wine  for  the 
purpose  of  communion  with  His  body  and  blood, 
and  the  cup  is  stated  to  be  "the  new  testament," 
or  covenant,  in  His  blood.  The  whole  transaction, 
in  its  totality,  has  not  only  the  attestation  of  three 
evangelists  to  support  it,  but  the  direct  testimony 
of  St  Paul,  and  the  unquestionable  and  unbroken 
practice  of  the  Christian  Church  from  the  earliest 
times.  What  we  would  ask  is,  not  only  whether 
it  be  not  profane,  but  whether  it  be  consistent  with 
common- sense,  to  say  nothing  of  common  criticism 
and   common  canons  of  historical  evidence,  to  select 


286  APPENDIX. 

arbitrarily  half-a-dozen  words  out  of  a  fully  attested 
record  of  this  kind,  and  to  apply  them  to  a  purpose, 
and  in  a  manner,  which  are  destitute  of  a  shadow 
of  support,  either  in  the  records  or  the  practice  of 
the  Christian  community  ?  A  man  begins  a  so-called 
reformation  in  the  name  of  History  and  Criticism, 
and  ends  by  "  reconceiving  the  Christ,"  as  it  is 
presumptuously  called,  in  defiance  of  the  one  most 
authentic  and  most  solemn  reminiscence  of  the  Christ 
of  history.  Does  any  one  out  of  a  novel  suppose 
that  arbitrary  reconstructions  of  this  kind  would 
stand  for  a  moment  in  the  light  of  reality,  and  of 
the  real  necessities  of  life  ?  If  the  proceeding  be 
not  profane,  it  can  only  be  excused  as  childish. 

But  if  the  proposed  new  faith  outdoes  any  recent 
attempt  of  the  kind  in  its  arbitrary  violence  to  history 
and  criticism,  it  is  as  impotent  as  any  proposed  sub- 
stitute for  Christianity  in  the  presence  of  those  great 
problems  of  death  and  a  future  life,  and  of  deliverance 
from  evil,  on  which  the  Christ  of  reality  has  thrown  so 
blessed  a  light.  Grey  is  described  as  unable  to  respond 
on  his  death-bed  to  the  pious  hope  of  an  old  relative 
that  it  would  not  be  long  before  they  met  again,  saying 
he  did  not  doubt  God's  goodness,  "  only  it  seemed  to 
be  His  will  we  should  be  certain  of  nothing  hut  Him- 
self. I  ask  no  more."  At  Grey's  funeral,  as  Elsmere 
listens  to  "  the  triumphant  outbursts  of  the  Christian 
service,  he  says  to  himself,  *  Man's  hope  has  grown 
humbler  than  this.  It  keeps  now  a  more  modest  mien 
in  the  presence  of  the  eternal  mystery ;  but  is  it  in 
truth  less  real,  less  sustaining  ?  Let  Grey's  trust 
answer  for  me.' "  What  a  bathos !  From  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinth- 
ians, and  St  Paul,  and  the  promises  of  the  Saviour — 


EGBERT   ELSMERE    AND   CHRISTIANITY.        287 

to  "  Grey's  trust."  It  is  a  melancholy  comment  on 
the  same  hollowness  that  at  the  death-bed  of  the 
Squire,  who  is  passing  away  in  bitterness,  loneliness, 
and  cynicism,  Elsmere — the  former  clergyman  of  his 
parish — has  not  one  word  of  consolation,  of  elevation, 
of  moral  influence  to  bestow  upon  him.  His  abandon- 
ment of  the  Christian  faith  had  brought  him  to  this — 
that  he  can  allow  a  man  whom  Grey  himself  describes 
as  an  "  inhuman  old  cynic  "  to  pass  into  the  next  world 
without  a  single  message  to  his  conscience,  a  single 
suggestion  of  repentance,  regret,  humility,  or  hope ! 
A  darker  condemnation  of  the  process  through  which 
Elsmere  had  passed  could  not  well  be  conceived.  But 
in  truth,  throughout  the  record  of  Elsmere's  religious 
struggles  or  of  his  religious  reconstruction,  there  is  not, 
as  Mr  Gladstone  has  observed,  a  trace  of  any  appre- 
hension of  that  terrible  problem  of  sin,  and  guilt, 
and  their  consequences,  to  which  Christianity  brings 
its  primary  illumination,  and  on  its  answer  to  which 
its  deepest  claims  upon  sinning  as  well  as  suffering 
humanity  are  based.  While  that  sense  of  sin,  that 
craving  for  forgiveness  and  salvation  from  evil,  that 
longing  for  reconciliation  with  a  righteous  God,  to 
which  the  Gospel  appeals,  remain  elements  of  the 
deepest  human  experience,  so  long  will  a  philosophical 
faith  which  has  not  a  word  to  say  on  these  subjects  be 
a  mere  mockery  of  human  hearts  and  consciences. 

One  other  observation  we  must  needs  make,  on  a 
point  in  which,  as  in  several  others,  the  authoress's 
artistic  iidelity  of  observation  has  supplied  a  striking 
comment  on  her  theories.  In  the  picture  she  has  drawn 
of  the  society  in  which  Elsmere  moves,  she  has  un- 
consciously told  us  that  all  the  truth,  all  the  purity, 
all  the  mercy,  all  the  best  graces  of  the  heart,  are  to 


288  APPENDIX. 

be  found  in  Christian  homes — Grey's  character,  the 
only  apparent  exception,  was  formed  under  strong 
Christian  influences — and  that  the  society  in  which 
the  enemies  of  the  faith  are  nursed  has  its  true  repre- 
sentatives in  a  heartless  and  cynical  Squire,  an  un- 
manned scholar,  a  profligate  woman  of  the  world,  and 
in  salons  held  under  her  protection,  where  a  pure- 
minded  woman  like  Catherine  cannot  be  present  with- 
out hearing  conversation  which  is  an  insult  to  her. 
"  Oh  !  those  women  and  that  talk,"  she  justly  exclaims, 
after  her  first  evening  with  Madame  de  Netteville — 
"  hateful !  "  She  is  right ;  and  if  Elsmere  could  attend 
such  a  salon  a  second  time,  and  be  interested  and 
flattered  by  association  with  such  creatures,  he  fully 
deserved  the  insult  whicli  he  afterwards  suffered  at 
Madame  de  Netteville's  hands.  But  it  is  to  be  hoped 
that,  in  the  emphasis  which  it  gives  to  this  contrast 
between  the  Christian  life  of  Catherine's  family  in 
Westmoreland,  and  the  inhumanity  and  profligacy  of 
the  society  to  the  seductions  of  which  Elsraere's  faith 
yields,  the  book  may  convey  to  the  large  circles  by 
which  it  has  been  read  at  least  one  wholesome  lesson. 
The  time  seems  to  have  come  when  people  who  wish 
to  live  Christian  lives,  and  to  maintain  Christian 
thoughts,  must  hold  themselves  aloof  from  a  society  in 
which,  as  Mrs  Ward  says,  "  everything  is  an  open 
question,  and  all  confessions  of  faith  are  more  or  less 
bad  taste."  Life  at  the  Universities  for  young  men, 
life  in  ordinary  society  for  young  women,  seems  fast 
becoming,  under  the  influence  of  an  unscrupulous 
philosophy  and  literature,  too  mischievous  or  dangerous 
to  be  encountered  without  necessity.  The  Christian 
world  will  have  to  draw  a  fence  around  itself,  and  to 
ostracise  books,  and  philosophers,  and  institutions  alike, 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTARY.  289 

by  which  the  bloom  is  taken  off  all  the  most  gracious 
and  tender  instincts  of  a  Christian  soul.  The  victory 
in  this  story,  to  our  minds,  remains  with  Catherine. 
She  wins  all  the  more  regard  by  virtue  of  the  tender 
womanly  love  which  restrains  her  in  her  long  struggle 
against  her  husband's  revolt,  and  which  hopes  all 
things  of  his  present  and  his  future.  But  her  instinc- 
tive revulsion  from  men  who  are  "aliens  from  the 
household  of  faith,  enemies  to  the  cross  of  Christ," 
her  distrust  of  an  unbridled  passion  for  art  and  artistic 
self-assertion,  and  her  loathing  for  a  loose  and  un- 
womanly society,  command  our  unreserved  allegiance, 
and  she  remains  the  one  redeeming  figure  in  the 
picture  of  an  otherwise  demoralised  and  demoralis- 
ing society. 


THE  SPEAKEK'S  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT.^ 

It  throws  some  discredit  upon  either  the  candour  or 
the  thoroughness  of  modern  sceptical  critics  that  the 
two  first  volumes  of  the  '  Speaker's  Commentary  upon 
the  New  Testament '  have  not  received  more  attention. 
They  constitute  the  most  important  contribution  which 
has  yet  been  made  in  this  country  to  the  chief  theo- 
logical controversy  of  our  day ;  and  we  have  also  no 
hesitation  in  saying  that  none  of  the  critical  works 

1  From  the  '  Quarterly  Review,'  No.  302,  April  1881. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  vols.  i.  and  ii., 
containing  the  Four  Gospels  and  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
London,  1878,  1880. 

T 


290  APPENDIX. 

which  have  been  published  abroad  afford  more  valuable 
materials  for  forming  a  sound  judgment  on  that  con- 
troversy. The  learned  and  conscientious  labour  of 
Canon  Cook,  alike  as  editor  and  as  contributor,  appears, 
we  think,  nowhere  to  so  much  advantage  as  in  this 
portion  of  his  great  undertaking,  and  it  is  a  matter 
for  congratulation  that  his  share  in  it  has,  from  causes 
in  other  respects  to  be  regretted,  been  larger  than  was 
originally  contemplated.  In  addition  to  his  general 
supervision,  he  is  solely  responsible  for  the  notes  on 
the  two  last  chapters  of  St  Matthew,  and  on  the 
whole  of  St  Mark's  Gospel.  The  Bishop  of  St  David's, 
moreover,  was  unable,  owing  to  the  pressure  of  his 
episcopal  duties,  to  prepare  for  the  press  his  Com- 
mentary on  St  Luke ;  and  Canon  Cook  consequently 
had  to  revise  that  portion  of  the  work,  and  he  accepts 
the  ultimate  responsibility  for  it.  He  has  also  fur- 
nished the  Introduction  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
The  other  portions  of  these  two  volumes  have  been 
contributed  by  scholars  of  the  highest  distinction. 
The  Introduction  to  the  first  three  Gospels  is  written 
by  the  Archbishop  of  York,  Dr  Thomson ;  the  Com- 
mentary on  St  Matthew  is  by  the  late  Dean  Mansel ; 
the  Introduction  to  St  John's  Gospel,  with  the  Com- 
mentary upon  it,  is  by  Dr  Westcott,  the  learned 
Eegius  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Cambridge  ^ ;  and  the 
Commentary  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  by  the 
Bishop  of  Chester,^  well  known  as  one  of  the  ablest 
of  recent  Eegius  Professors  of  Divinity  at  Oxford. 
No  body  of  scholars  of  equal  distinction  has  yet  been 
associated  together  for  the  purpose  of  commenting  on 
the  evangelical  and  apostolic  history. 

A   work   which    possesses    the    authority    of    such 

^  Now  Bishop  of  Durham.  -  Dr  Jacobson,  since  deceased. 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTARY.  291 

names  would  on  that  ground  alone  claim  the  best 
attention  of  critics ;  and  a  survey  of  its  contents 
should  be  sufficient  to  command  for  it  at  once  the 
careful  study  of  any  impartial  reader.  The  first 
point  to  be  observed  is  that  it  is  very  much  more 
than  a  commentary.  At  the  present  moment,  on  the 
eve  of  the  publication  of  that  version  of  the  New 
Testament  on  which  the  company  of  revisers  has  been 
so  long  engaged  at  Westminster,  it  deserves  to  be 
remembered  that,  from  the  first,  it  has  been  a  leading 
principle  of  the  '  Speaker's  Commentary '  to  furnish  in 
the  Notes  all  requisite  corrections  both  of  the  text  and 
of  the  authorised  translation.  In  fact,  it  led  the  way 
in  the  work  of  revision,  and  when  the  new  version 
appears,  the  English  reader  will  find  in  this  Commen- 
tary a  very  useful  standard  for  testing  the  variations 
from  the  old  version.  But  this  is  an  incidental 
advantage.  The  consideration  of  chief  importance  is 
that,  in  the  Introductions  to  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  these  volumes  furnish  a  masterly  and 
comprehensive  review  of  that  controversy  respecting 
the  origin  and  trustworthiness  of  the  Scriptures  of  the 
New  Testament  which  during  the  last  two  generations 
has  prevailed  abroad,  and  which  M.  Eenan  and  the 
author  of  '  Supernatural  Eeligion '  have  recently  popu- 
larised in  this  country.  Canon  Cook,  in  particular,  is 
perfectly  acquainted  with  every  turn  in  this  long  and 
intricate  debate ;  he  is  as  familiar  with  its  philosophi- 
cal as  with  its  purely  critical  aspect ;  and  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  there  is  any  scholar  similarly  com- 
petent to  review  its  checkered  course  and  its  general 
results.  In  their  special  fields  Dr  Thomson  and  Dr 
Westcott  are  pre-eminent;  and  in  their  respective 
Introductions    the   reader   may  rely  on   due   account 


292  APPENDIX. 

having  been  taken  of  all  important  contributions  to 
the  subject  by  Continental  scholars,  from  the  opening 
of  modern  criticism  at  the  commencement  of  this 
century,  to  the  last  phase  of  the  chameleon  -  like 
ingenuity  of  M.  Eenan.  These  Introductions,  indeed, 
possess  both  the  substance  and  the  interest  of  indepen- 
dent works  on  these  momentous  topics.  They  are  of 
very  considerable  extent.  Combined,  they  would  form 
an  ample  octavo  volume,  and  their  value  is  independent 
in  a  great  measure  of  the  detailed  commentary  on  the 
text.  Dr  Thomson's  Introduction  to  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  has,  indeed,  already  been  reprinted  in  an 
interesting  and  instructive  volume  of  "  Collected 
Papers,"  recently  published  under  the  title,  'Word, 
Work,  and  Will ' ;  but  at  a  time  when  so  much 
attention  is  attracted  to  this  subject,  it  might  be  very 
serviceable  to  reprint  those  of  Canon  Cook  and  Dr 
Westcott,  and  to  combine  them  with  that  of  the 
Archbishop,  so  as  to  deprive  the  public  of  all  excuse 
for  not  applying  some  sober  English  sense  and  sound 
learning  to  check  the  wild  speculations  now  prevalent. 
But  M.  Eenan  may  come  to  London,  and  puzzle  and 
perplex  fashionable  audiences  by  his  arbitrary  and 
reckless  paradoxes ;  the  newspapers  may  hasten  to 
give  summaries  of  his  lectures,  and  to  disperse  his 
last  new  theories  among  a  public  wholly  incapable  of 
forming  a  judgment  upon  them  without  assistance ; 
and  all  the  while  no  attention  is  paid  to  the  invalu- 
able stores  of  learning  and  historic  argument  to  be 
found  in  the  pages  before  us.  With  the  mass  of 
readers  this  indifference  may  be  charitably  ascribed  to 
the  old  and  simple  preference  of  what  is  new  to  what 
is  true.  But  critics  like  M.  Kenan,  or  the  author  of 
'  Supernatural  Eeligion,'  or  the  German  writers  who 


THE   speaker's   COMMENTARY.  293 

notice  in  their  numerous  '  Zeitschriften '  every  fugitive 
production  of  their  own  professors,  are  not  similarly- 
excusable. 

It  is  more  than  time,  indeed,  to  observe  that  there 
has  hitherto  been  something  quite  incomprehensible  in 
the  inattention  paid  by  the  modern  school  of  German 
critics  to  the  work  of  English  scholars  in  the  field  of 
Church  History  and  of  criticism.  For  example,  it  is  a 
kind  of  regulation  that  every  manual  of  Church  History 
in  Germany  should  commence  with  a  notice  of  all  pre- 
vious works  of  any  consequence  on  the  same  subject. 
But  it  is  extremely  rare  to  find  in  such  introductory 
notices  any  mention  whatever  of  the  great  works  of 
Dean  Milman — works  which,  alike  in  their  research 
and  their  historic  power,  stand  in  the  front  rank  of 
their  class,  and  which,  for  their  part,  exhibit  a  thorough 
and  candid  study  of  all  the  important  productions  of 
German  scholars.  No  text-book  of  Church  History 
enjoys  a  higher  reputation  in  Germany  than  that  of 
the  venerable  Dr  Karl  Hase.  Its  tenth  edition 
appeared  in  1877,  and  it  records  up  to  the  latest  date 
the  appearance  of  both  German  and  French  works  on 
the  subject  of  any  consequence.  But  the  latest  English 
contribution  to  Church  History  mentioned  in  it  is  the 
pious  but  antiquated  work  of  Milner,  and  neither 
Milman  nor  Eobertson  are  named.  From  an  article, 
indeed,  which  we  shall  notice  further  on,  published 
last  month  by  a  leading  German  scholar,  calling  atten- 
tion to  the  most  important  discovery  made  for  many 
years  in  the  field  of  New  Testament  criticism,  we  may 
indulge  the  hope  that  this  indifference  to  the  work  of 
English  and  American  divines  is  passing  away.  But 
as  yet,  it  would  seem  as  if  on  all  subjects  connected 
with  Christian  history,  especially  that  of  early  times, 


294  APPENDIX. 

German   and   Continental    thought    had   for  the   last 
generation  been  unable  to  move  in  any  other  groove 
than  that  of  the  speculations  set  on  foot  by  Baur  and 
his  school.     Even  this  does  not  excuse  the  neglect  of 
Milman,  for  the  last  edition  of  his  '  History  of  Chris- 
tianity '  contains,  both  in  the  preface  and  in  the  body 
of  the  work,  most  instructive  observations  on  the  views 
of  the  Tubingen  divines  and  of  their  followers.     But 
the  chief  point  of  interest  to  German  scholars  seems  to 
have  been  the  theories  which  are  at  stake,  not  the 
sacred  writings  or   the  facts  of  ecclesiastical  history 
themselves.     Among  Englishmen,  on  the  other  hand, 
whatever  their  occasional  defects  from  the  point  of 
view  of  technical  knowledge,  a  sounder  instinct  has 
been  predominant.     They  have  been  concerned  in  the 
first  instance  with  the  vital  truths  and  facts  of  Christian 
history,  and   they  have  very  properly  allowed  their 
apprehension  of  these  realities  to  determine,  in  many 
instances,  the  weight  to  be  allowed  to  theories  mani- 
festly inconsistent  with  them.     "We  have  undoubtedly 
learned  very  much  from  German  criticism,  and  shall 
learn  much  more.      But  German  writers,  as  some  of 
the  ablest  among  them  are  beginning  to  acknowledge, 
have  also  much  to  learn  from  the  solid  historic  sense 
of  Englishmen.     The  leading  scholars  in  this  country 
are  certainly  not  liable  to  the  accusation  of  neglecting 
German   learning,  and  it  is  time  the  Germans  paid 
some  similar  attention  to  the  results  of  English  thought. 
It  is  from  this  point  of  view,  as  a  rare  combination 
of  the  strong  religious  and  historic  sense  of  Englishmen 
with  all  the  results  of  recent  investigations  abroad, 
that  the  volumes  before  us  deserve  to  be  so  warmly 
commended  to  the  reader.      It  is  sometimes  said  in 
disparagement    of    this    and    similar    publications    in 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTARY.  295 

England  that  they  are  "  apologetic."  If  it  be  implied 
that  the  writers  feel  bound  to  maintain  foregone  critical 
conclusions,  the  insinuation  is  unjustifiable;  but  so 
far  as  it  is  meant  that  they  are  written  with  a  conscious 
realisation  of  truths  which  the  more  prominent  class 
of  foreign  critics  disregard,  it  is  but  a  recognition  of 
what  we  have  just  indicated  as  the  chief  merit  of 
English  thought  on  such  subjects.  Putting  aside, 
indeed,  the  question  of  acquaintance  with  dogmatic 
theology,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  it  is 
the  characteristic  advantage  of  Biblical  scholars  in 
England,  that  they  generally  possess  a  more  vivid 
apprehension  of  the  spirit  and  practical  meaning  of 
the  Scriptures  than  is  usual  abroad,  even  among  the 
learned.  M.  Eenan,  for  instance,  speaking  in  his  last 
work, '  L'lfiglise  Chr^tienne  '  (pp.  50,  51),  of  the  defects 
of  the  "  fourth  Gospel,"  mentions  "  la  prolixity  I'aridit^, 
resultant  d'interminables  discours  pleins  de  m^ta- 
physique  abstruse,  et  d'allegations  personnelles."  An 
English  divine,  and  we  may  add  any  intelligent  English 
reader,  must  needs  approach  such  a  work  as  St  John's 
Gospel  from  a  directly  contrary  point  of  view  ;  and  the 
mere  fact  of  a  critic  like  M.  Eenan  expressing  such  an 
opinion  cannot  but  be  regarded  by  thoughtful  English- 
men as  disqualifying  him  from  forming  any  trustworthy 
judgment  on  questions  of  internal  evidence  relating  to 
the  Gospels.  An  English  clergyman,  for  instance, 
knows  as  a  matter  of  fact  that,  so  far  from  the  dis- 
courses in  St  John's  Gospel  being  "  arid,"  "  prolix,"  or 
"  metaphysical,"  they  are  among  the  portions  of  the 
Gospels  which  are  the  best  appreciated  by  the  simplest 
members  of  his  flock ;  he  knows  that  in  visiting  poor 
sick  people,  in  suffering  and  in  death,  there  are  no 
words  which  come  more  home  to  their  hearts,  or  give 


296  APPENDIX. 

them  greater  comfort,  than  those  utterances  of  our 
Lord  which  so  offend  M.  Eenan's  critical  taste.  We 
are  disposed  to  attribute  a  good  deal  of  this  divergence 
between  the  points  of  view  of  the  scholars  of  the  two 
nations  to  the  far  greater  prevalence  in  England  of  a 
general  popular  acquaintance  with  the  text  of  the  Holy- 
Scriptures.  A  remarkable  testimony  to  the  advantage 
we  possess  in  this  respect  has  recently  been  borne  by 
a  most  competent  and  unprejudiced  witness.  One  of 
the  most  useful  of  recent  German  contributions  to  the 
study  of  the  Scriptures  is  the  '  Dictionary  of  Biblical 
Antiquities/  now  being  issued  under  the  editorship  of 
Dr  Eiehm,  in  conjunction  with  other  distinguished 
scholars  in  Germany.  In  the  preface  to  that  work 
this  learned  writer  says  that — 

"  German  evangelical  theology  may,  indeed,  always  claim  the 
honour  of  being  the  pioneer  and  guide  of  the  theologians  of 
other  nations  in  the  scientific  and  learned  investigation  of  the 
Bible.  But  this,"  he  adds,  "  has  been  of  little  benefit  to  our 
own  German  national  culture.  Knowledge  and  understanding 
of  the  Bible,  which  constitute  so  essential  an  element  of  re- 
ligious culture,  remain  by  far  its  weakest  side.  In  this  respect 
we  Germans  stand,  for  instance,  far  behind  the  English." 

This  remarkable  result  is  doubtless  due,  in  the 
main,  to  the  unique  privilege  which  Englishmen  have 
enjoyed  of  hearing  the  Bible  incessantly  read  to 
them  in  the  public  services  of  the  Church.  Its 
words  have  been  stamped  upon  their  minds  by  con- 
stant oral  repetition,  and  the  deep  import  of  the 
sacred  language  has  thus  penetrated  into  their  inmost 
thoughts  and  feelings.  Among  the  wonderful  achieve- 
ments of  the  English  statesmen  and  reformers  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  this  perhaps  is  one  of  the  very 
greatest.    By  one  grand  act  of  legislation,  they  stamped 


THE    speaker's    COMMENTARY.  297 

the  words  and  the  leading  ideas  of  the  sacred  writers 
upon  ten  successive  generations  of  Englishmen,  and 
upon  the  whole  English-speaking  world.  No  other 
nation  whatever  has  been  similarly  imbued  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Scriptures,  and  none  other  feels  and 
thinks  to  an  equal  degree  in  the  language  of  the 
Bible.  The  consequence  is  that  English  scholars 
instinctively  deal  with  the  Scriptures  under  a  vivid 
apprehension  of  the  living  meaning  they  bear  to  the 
hearts  of  the  people  at  large ;  they  are  forced,  by  the 
very  atmosphere  in  which  they  have  been  brought 
up,  and  in  which  they  live  and  work,  to  start,  in 
all  their  Biblical  studies,  from  this  point  of  view. 
German  scholars,  on  the  contrary,  being  sensible  of 
no  such  popular  feeling  around  them,  and  not  having 
been  educated  in  such  an  atmosphere,  are  able  to 
approach  questions  of  Scriptural  criticism  in  a  spirit 
which  is  too  much  removed  from  practical  life, 
and  too  purely  intellectual.  To  an  Englishman,  the 
minute  and  unsparing  analysis  of  the  Scriptures  to 
be  found  in  many  foreign  works  seems  a  kind  of 
vivisection ;  to  the  German  it  is  too  often  like  the 
mere  dissection  of  a.  dead  product  of  antiquity.  In 
this  sense,  no  doubt,  the  English  scholar  and  divine 
has  an  apologetic  instinct  about  him ;  but,  instead 
of  being  deprecated,  this  ought  to  be  regarded  as 
one  of  his  strong  points.  He  knows  something  of 
the  living  force  of  the  documents  with  which  he  is 
dealing,  and  he  has  a  deep  suspicion  of  critical  specu- 
lations which  are  insensible  to  it.  In  approaching 
the  subject  in  this  spirit,  he  appears  to  us  to  be 
altogether  in  the  right,  and  to  possess  an  unquestion- 
able advantage  over  a  critic  who  is  more  concerned 
with  the  form  than   with   the   matter  of   the   sacred 


298  APPENDIX. 

writings.  The  designation  of  "the  higher  criticism" 
is  too  frequently  claimed  for  a  mere  technical  and 
philological  acuteness  in  analysing  the  text  of  the 
Scriptures.  But,  in  reality,  the  substance  is  superior 
to  the  form,  and  the  highest  criticism  is  that  which 
is  the  most  capable  of  entering  into  the  spirit  of  a 
writer,  and  of  interpreting  the  details  of  his  work 
by  the  light  of  his  main  purpose  and  of  his  anima- 
ting ideas.  In  this  respect  English  scholars  and 
divines  may  with  confidence  challenge  comparison 
with  the  leading  writers  of  Germany  and  France. 

In  approaching  the  question  of  the  authenticity 
of  the  books  ascribed  to  the  four  evangelists,  and 
of  the  general  credibility  of  the  history  of  the  New 
Testament,  this  really  high  criticism  is  eminently 
necessary.  The  first  point  to  be  considered  is  that 
which  is  too  often  the  very  last  to  be  taken  into 
account  by  the  negative  speculation  which  has  of 
late  been  so  popular.  What  is  the  general  character 
and  purpose  of  the  four  books  which  are  commonly 
known  as  "  The  Four  Gospels "  ?  If  it  be  assumed 
at  the  outset  that  they  were  intended  for  narratives 
of  the  life  of  our  Lord,  they  may  be  estimated 
and  contrasted  in  proportion  to  their  fulfilment  of 
this  function ;  and  their  agreement  or  difference  in 
points  of  chronology,  of  incident,  or  of  language, 
may  become  the  main  subject  of  interest.  But,  as 
the  Archbishop  of  York  begins  by  pointing  out,-^  this 
is  obviously  a  misconception.  N"ot  a  little  obscurity, 
perhaps,  has  been  cast  over  the  matter  by  the  habit 
into  which  people  have  long  fallen  of  applying  the 
word  "  Gospel "  as  a  designation  of  the  book  which 
contains  the  evangelical  message,  and  thus  of  speaking 

^  Introduction,  pp.  vii,  viii. 


THE   SPEAKERS    COMMENTARY.  299 

in  plural  of  "  The  Gospels."  In  the  mind  of  the 
evangelists  there  is  but  one  Gospel,  and  they  are 
each  expounding  it  from  their  several  points  of  view. 
"  The  Gospel "  is  "  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  the 
Son  of  God,"  which  He  commissioned  His  apostles 
to  preach  to  every  creature. 

In  other  words,  the  four  "  Gospels,"  as  we  now 
call  them,  claim  to  be  regarded,  in  the  first  instance, 
as  records  of  the  oral  teaching  of  the  Apostles  and 
Evangelists  ;  and  it  is  remarkable  that  they  closely 
correspond  in  this  respect  with  the  examples  of  that 
teaching  presented  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Take, 
for  instance,  St  Peter's  summary  of  the  Gospel  mes- 
sage to  Cornelius  : — 

"  The  word  which  God  sent  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
preaching  peace  by  Jesus  Christ :  .  .  .  that  word,  I  say,  ye 
know,  which  was  published  throughout  all  Judsea,  and  began 
from  Gahlee,  after  the  baptism  which  John  preached ;  how 
God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
with  power :  who  went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all 
that  were  oppressed  of  the  devil :  for  God  was  with  Him. 
And  we  are  witnesses  of  all  things  which  He  did,  both  in 
the  land  of  the  Jews,  and  in  Jerusalem ;  whom  they  slew 
and  hanged  on  a  tree :  Him  God  raised  up  the  third  day, 
and  showed  Him  openly." — Acts  x.  36-40. 

A  more  accurate  summary  of  the  general  purport  of 
any  one  of  the  four  Gospels  could  not  have  been  given. 
They  are  not,  therefore,  literary  works,  produced  in 
study  and  retirement,  designed  simply  to  give  a  his- 
torical account  of  the  events  of  our  Saviour's  life. 
They  arose  out  of  an  immediate  practical  purpose,  and 
they  were  designed  to  bring  home  certain  practical 
convictions  to  those  who  read  or  heard  them.  In  this 
respect  they  conform  to  the  character  of  nearly  all  the 


300  APPENDIX. 

books  of  the  sacred  volume — those,  at  all  events,  of 
the  New  Testament.  They  are  struck  out,  as  it  were, 
by  the  necessities  of  actual  life,  and  they  are  instinct 
with  the  vital  energy  thus  infused  into  them. 

Any  criticism,  therefore,  which  discusses  the  so- 
called  four  Gospels  as  mere  biographical  narratives, 
will  be  likely  to  miss  the  real  causes  of  their  origin, 
and  of  their  several  peculiarities.  The  numerous 
efforts  which  have  been  made  of  late  years  to  compose 
a  "  Life  of  Christ  "  out  of  the  records  of  the  evangelists 
have  had  at  least  one  unfortunate  tendency — that  of 
casting  the  colour  of  a  similar  design  over  the  Gospels 
themselves.  It  is,  indeed,  very  questionable  whether 
so  much  as  an  approach  to  success  in  such  attempts 
can  ever  be  made.  It  is  very  well  to  undertake  to 
write  the  life  of  a  man  like  ourselves,  or  even  of  a 
man  like  an  Apostle,  who  was  under  supernatural  influ- 
ences. Such  a  task,  indeed,  is  always  one  of  the  most 
difficult  to  execute  with  any  justice.  In  any  case  it 
is  supremely  hard  to  preserve  the  right  proportion 
between  the  several  influences  which  determine  the 
course  of  a  man's  life,  to  estimate  the  relative  force  of 
motives  and  the  real  significance  of  acts,  so  as  to  paint 
a  true  picture,  with  the  lights  and  shadows  duly 
assigned.  But  still,  in  all  other  cases,  the  motives, 
the  words,  and  the  deeds  are  somewhat  on  a  level 
with  ourselves.  They  may  be  far  greater  and  better 
than  our  own,  but  we  are  capable  of  a  sufficient 
approach  to  them  to  allow  of  our  forming  some  fair 
conception  of  their  nature.  But  who  can  venture, 
with  any  confidence,  to  estimate  the  proportions, 
the  significance,  and  the  real  order  of  a  life  at 
once  human  and  divine  ?  One  of  the  most  remark- 
able characteristics,  in  fact,  of  the  Gospels  themselves 
is  that,  so  far  from  offering  a  life  of  Christ,  they  would 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTARY.  301 

rather  appear  deliberately  and  scrupulously  to  abstain 
from  any  attempt  to  describe  that  life.  What  they 
profess  to  give  us  is  the  Gospel — the  Gospel  which  He 
preached,  and  those  words  and  acts  of  His  which  con- 
stituted or  revealed  the  Gospel.  But  He  Himself  is 
treated  with  a  reverent  reserve,  and  details  are  con- 
tinually withheld  on  which  a  natural  curiosity  would 
have  desired  satisfaction.  Notoriously,  the  evangelists 
are  silent  respecting  by  far  the  greater  part  of  His  life 
on  earth — a  part  of  it  which,  as  might  well  have  been 
thought,  would  have  had  a  profound  interest  for  us. 
Their  reserve  is  not  less  remarkable  in  their  abstinence 
from  placing  their  own  interpretations  on  His  words 
and  acts.  They  report  them,  and  leave  them  to  speak 
for  themselves  ;  as  though  knowing  that  they  would  be 
infinite  in  their  significance,  and  would  possess  an  ever- 
varying  application  to  different  minds  and  different 
ages.  A  criticism  which  attempts  to  judge  such  nar- 
ratives by  a  merely  literary  standard,  and  by  the 
mechanical  tests  of  verbal  analj^sis,  is  foredoomed  to 
failure. 

Now  this  being  the  character  of  the  Gospels,  it 
seems  unfortunate  that  to  the  first  three  there  has, 
throughout  all  recent  criticism,  been  given  a  desig- 
nation which  of  itself  tends  to  withdraw  attention 
from  their  more  vital  characteristics.  They  have 
been  designated  "  The  Synoptic  Gospels,"  as  though 
they  were  in  the  first  instance  to  be  regarded  as  con- 
structed on  the  same  general  plan,  and  were  to  be 
judged  and  criticised  with  reference  to  it.  They  have 
consequently  been  compared  most  minutely  with  each 
other,  not  simply  with  a  view  of  contrasting  their  indi- 
vidual purpose  and  spirit,  but  with  that  of  analys- 
ing the  details  of  their  structure,  and  accounting  for 
their  formal  and  mechanical  variations ;  and  on  this 


302  APPENDIX. 

comparatively  barren  problem  the  labours  of  German 
critics  have  to  an  incredible  extent  been  absorbed  and 
exhausted.  Attention  having  been  once  withdrawn 
from  the  essential  spirit  which  animates  the  evangel- 
ists, and  concentrated  on  textual  peculiarities,  an  un- 
limited field  has  been  opened  to  the  ingenuities  of 
verbal  criticism,  while  the  balancing  influence  of  larger 
historic  considerations  has  been  sacrificed.  There  is, 
of  course,  room  for  infinite  speculation  in  detail  on  the 
reasons  by  which  variations  of  language  in  the  nar- 
ratives of  the  evangelists  are  to  be  explained.  Of 
such  speculations  Archbishop  Thomson  gives  a  striking 
illustration  by  comparing  the  two  following  parallel 
passages  from  St  Mark  and  St  Luke :  ^ — 

"Mark!.  "LukeIv. 

35.  And  in  the  morning,  rising  42.  And  when  it  was  day,  He 
up  a  great  while  before  day,  He  departed  and  went  into  a  desert 
went  out,  and  departed  into  a  place  ;  and  the  people  sought 
solitary  place,  and  there  prayed.  Him,   and  came  unto  Him,  and 

36.  And  Simon  and  they  that  stayed  Him,  that  He  should  not 
were   with    Him   followed    after  depart  from  them. 

Him. 

37.  And  when  they  had  found 
Him,  they  said  unto  Him,  All 
men  seek  for  Thee. 

38.  And  He  said  unto  them,  43.  And  He  said  unto  them,  I 
Let  us  go  into  the  next  towns,  must  preach  the  kingdom  of  God 
that  I  may  preach  there  also  :  for  to  other  cities  also  :  for  therefore 
therefore  came  I  forth.                         am  I  sent. 

39.  And  He  preached  in  their  44.  And  He  preached  in  the 
synagogues  throughout  all   Gali-      synagogues  of  Galilee." 

lee,  and  cast  out  devils." 

Now,  says  the  Archbishop, 

"  these  words  of  Mark  contain  several  striking  points.  St 
Luke    says    that    the    multitude    sought    Jesus ;    St    Mark 


^  Introduction,  p.  xviii. 


THE   speaker's   COMMENTARY.  303 

mentions  that  Simon  and  the  disciples  pursued  Him,  told 
Him  of  the  multitudes  seeking  Him,  and  pressed  Him 
to  return.  The  verb  'followed'  is  in  the  singular  in  the 
best  MSS.,  as  though  Peter  followed,  with  the  rest  as 
mere  companions;  but  these,  summed  up  as  'the  rest,' 
were  James,  John,  and  Andrew.  The  very  early  rising, 
and  the  prayer  which  was  the  object  of  it,  are  in  Mark 
alone.  The  proposal  to  make  a  circuit  in  Galilee,  the 
completeness  of  the  circuit,  rests  on  St  Mark's  narrative. 
Mark  is  very  graphic  and  distinct.  Luke  more  general, 
yet  clear.  Matthew  is  wholly  silent.  How  will  criticism 
deal  with  these  differences^  Holtzmann  regards  this  as 
one  of  the  most  decisive  proofs  of  the  originality  of  Mark. 
He  points  out  how  the  several  points  have  been  obscured 
in  Luke.  Wittichen  regards  the  passage  of  St  Mark  as 
original,  omitted  by  St  Matthew  as  being  needless  after 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Godet  can  understand  all 
the  differences  on  the  supposition  that  the  two  narratives 
had  a  common  origin  in  traditional  preaching,  but  not  on 
the  supposition  that  one  copied  from  another.  Ernest 
Bunsen  has  no  doubt  that  St  Mark  copied  from  St  Luke, 
adding  a  few  touches  from  St  Matthew.  Bleek,  quite 
gratuitously,  casts  a  doubt  on  the  accuracy  of  St  Mark, 
as  though  he  made  the  next  miracle,  of  healing  a  leper, 
take  place  in  one  of  the  synagogues;  for  which  we  cannot 
find  a  word  in  St  Mark's  text.  He  is  confident  that  in 
the  passages  which  precede  and  follow  this,  the  healing 
of  Simon's  wife's  mother  and  the  cleansing  of  the  leper, 
Mark  had  before  him  the  two  other  Gospels,  and  used 
them  both.  Meyer  sees  in  the  mention  of  Peter's  name, 
the  singular  verb,  and  the  omission  of  the  other  names, 
the  ground  of  the  idea  of  Peter's  pre-eminence;  but  re- 
fuses to  see  in  it  any  sign  of  a  'Petrine'  tendency  in 
the  evangelist.  Lastly,  Weiss  sees  an  involuntary  indi- 
cation, in  this  mention  of  Peter,  of  the  source  whence 
the  evangelist  drew  his  information ;  while  he  finds  clear 
tokens  of  the  reflecting  editor  in  St  Luke,  who  passes 
over  the  pursuit  of  the  disciples,  intensifies  the  expression 
of    duty,    '  must    preach,'    and    substitutes    for    the    more 


304  APPENDIX. 

ambiguous   '  came   I    forth/    the    clearer    reference    to    the 
heavenly  commission,  in  the  words  '  am  I  sent.'  " 

The  Archbishop  naturally  asks  what  we  are  to 
think  of  these  varieties  of  opinion,  but  that  the 
so-called  science  which  arrives  at  them  is  founded 
on  no  sure  principles  ?  All  that  is  certain  is,  that 
of  two  accounts,  completely  in  harmony  with  each 
other,  one  is  graphic  and  full  of  detail,  the  other 
more  general  and  with  less  minuteness  of  handling. 
One  critic  concludes  that  the  more  general  has  been 
formed  by  throwing  off  something  from  the  more 
full ;  another  thinks  that  in  St  Mark  we  have  a  later 
hand,  with  more  literary  skill,  filling  up  with  skilful 
touches  a  narrative  that  requires  this  treatment  for 
its  literary  interest.  One  hears  the  voice  of  Peter, 
a  living  witness  of  the  scene.  Another  detects  some 
mere  epitomiser  or  editor,  making  the  best  of  the 
materials  at  his  command.  All  these  conjectures 
cannot  be  true ;  and  it  may  be  confidently  said 
that  common- sense  would  in  any  other  case  at  once 
condemn  any  such  elaborate  inferences  from  such 
slight  variations  of  expression. 

It  is  only  natural  that  the  general  conclusions 
which  German  critics  have  drawn  from  premisses  of 
this  kind  should  prove  conflicting  and  mutually  de- 
structive. We  take,  for  instance,  the  Archbishop's 
summary^  of  the  dispute  respecting  the  relation  of 
St  Mark's  Gospel  to  the  others.  Hilgenfeld,  one  of 
the  acutest  of  the  disciples  of  Baur,  thinks  the 
thoroughgoing  dependence  of  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark 
on  the  Gospel  of  St  Matthew  is  undeniable.  Eeuss, 
another    very   learned    and    acute    writer,    thinks    he 

^  Introduction,  p.  xxxvi. 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTARY.  305 

has  shown  that  St  Mark  bears  everywhere  the  stamp 
of  originality,  whilst  St  Matthew  presents  numerous 
and  various  signs  of  the  revision  of  a  second  hand. 
Keim  considers  that  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark  aims 
at  uniting  the  two  great  Gospels ;  and  that,  while 
in  the  first  part  of  his  work  St  Mark  follows  St 
Luke,  in  the  second  he  follows  St  Matthew.  Volk- 
mar  regards  St  Mark's  Gospel  as  a  work  of  a  Pauline 
spirit  and  tendency,  aimed  against  the  Judaic  tend- 
ency of  the  Apocalypse.  Hilgenfeld  strongly  denies 
this,  draws  attention  to  the  Jewish  side  of  the  Gospel, 
and  considers  that,  far  from  its  being  the  expression 
of  either  a  Petrine  or  a  Pauline  tendency,  it  repre- 
sents the  harmony  and  conciliation  of  the  two  prin- 
ciples. What  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  this 
mass  of  contradictory  speculation,  but  that  the  evi- 
dence on  which  such  writers  rely  affords  them  no 
solid  ground  for  the  conclusions  they  deduce,  and 
that  their  whole  method  is  untrustworthy? 

We  regret  to  say,  however,  that  one  of  the  wildest  and 
most  presumptuous  examples  of  this  style  of  criticism 
has  been  recently  put  forward  in  an  important  publica- 
tion in  this  country.  The  theory  of  an  original  Gospel 
from  which  our  three  first  Gospels  were  derived  has 
been  advocated  by  many  writers  ;  but  it  has  been  re- 
served for  an  English  scholar  to  reduce  it  unconsciously 
ad  absurdum  in  an  attempt  to  restore  this  original  Gos- 
pel by  a  mechanical,  not  an  intellectual,  process.  In  an 
article  on  the  Gospels,  which  has  unfortunately  been 
admitted  into  the  new  edition  of  the  '  Encyclopaedia 
Britannica,'  Dr  Abbott  has  started  the  theory  of  the 
existence  of  a  "  Triple  Tradition,"  as  he  is  pleased  to 
call  it,  which  can  be  recovered  from  the  texts  of  the 
three  first  Gospels.     He  picks  out  all  the  words  and 

U 


306  APPENDIX. 

bits  of  words — literally  portions  of  words — which  they 
have  in  common,  and  then  practically  assumes  that 
these  must  all  have  formed  not  merely  a  part  of  an 
original  tradition  which  they  all  used,  but  all  that  was 
of  importance  in  it.  This  "  triple  tradition  "  has  the 
advantage,  from  his  point  of  view,  that  "it  omits  the 
genealogies,  miraculous  incarnation,  and  the  picturesque 
details  of  the  infancy,"  and  that  it  "  suddenly  ter- 
minates without  any  record  of  the  appearance  of  Jesus 
to  His  disciples." 

"However  we  may  regret  this,  it  is,"  we  are  told,  "perhaps 
what  may  be  naturally  expected  on  the  hypothesis  that  we 
have  before  us  an  early  tradition,  originated  at  a  time  when 
the  numerous  manifestations  of  Jesus  after  His  death  were 
still  attested  by  living  witnesses ;  when  as  yet  it  had  been 
found  impossible  to  reduce  the  experiences  and  impressions 
of  those  who  had  seen  Him — impressions  necessarily  variable 
and  transient,  blended  with  fear  and  with  an  excitement 
bordering  on  ecstasy — to  a  consistent  and  historical  shape ; 
and  when  it  had  not  yet  been  found  necessary  to  define  and 
harden  the  narrative  so  as  to  adapt  it  for  the  purpose  of 
meeting  doubts  and  objections." 

The  motive  for  thus  eliminating  from  the  only 
trustworthy  record  the  elements  characteristic  of  the 
several  evangelists  is  sufficiently  evident.  But  the 
baselessness  of  the  theory  needs  little  exposure,  and  it 
is  very  well  demolished  by  Dr  Salmon,  the  eminent 
divine  and  mathematician  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin, 
in  an  interesting  volume  of  sermons  he  has  just 
printed.-^  Such  a  process,  as  Dr  Salmon  observes, 
involves  the  assumption  that,  on  the  supposition  that 
one  original  tradition  existed  and  that  it  was  made 
use  of  by  three  subsequent  compilers,  each  of  these 

^  Non-miraculous  Christianity  and  other  Sermons,  p.  11. 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTARY.  307 

compilers  would  be  bound  to  incorporate  the  whole 
of  it  in  his  work,  so  that  an  omission  by  any  one 
of  them  justifies  us  in  presuming  that  what  is  left 
out  formed  no  portion  of  the  original  tradition.  The 
unreasonableness  of  such  an  assumption  is  evident 
the  moment  it  is  put  into  words.  But  even  this 
is  not  sufficient ;  for  unless  we  can  say  with  certainty 
that  none  of  the  evangelists  made  use  of  the  work 
of  another,  we  cannot  be  certain  that  all  the  things 
they  have  in  common  were  independently  taken 
from  a  common  source.  Yet-  assumptions  like  these 
supply  the  foundation  upon  which  is  erected  the 
main  part  of  this  elaborate  contribution,  in  our  chief 
cyclopaedia,  to  the  most  important  of  all  critical  and 
theological  topics.  In  the  presence  of  criticism  of  this 
kind,  and  of  a  vast  deal  of  that  of  Germany,  it  is 
impossible,  in  spite  of  the  difference  of  the  subject, 
not  to  be  reminded  of  Sterne's  description  of  the 
connoisseurs, 

"  whose  heads,  sir,  are  stuck  so  full  of  rules  and  compasses, 
and  have  that  eternal  propensity  to  apply  them  upon  all 
occasions,  that  a  work  of  genius  had  better  go  to  the  devil 
at  once  than  stand  to  be  pricked  and  tortured  to  death  by 
em. 

We  confess  that  in  reading  German  critics  on  these 
subjects,  we  are  again  and  again  tempted  to  join  in 
Sterne's  concluding  exclamation  : — 

"  Grant  me  patience,  just  heaven  !  Of  all  the  cants  which 
are  canted  in  this  canting  world  —  though  the  cant  of 
hypocrites  may  be  the  worst — the  cant  of  criticism  is  the 
most  tormenting." 

After  all,  what  is  the  main  motive  of  these  ingenious 
schemes  ?     They  are  for  the  most  part  prompted  by  a 


308  APPENDIX. 

prior  assumption  that  we  have  not,  and  cannot  have, 
the  genuine  testimony  of  eye-witnesses  to  the  extra- 
ordinary facts  which  the  Gospels  narrate.  The  history 
of  advanced  criticism  as  applied  to  the  Gospels  and  to 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  is  one  of  a  succession  of 
devices  for  getting  rid  of  the  miraculous  and  the 
supernatural  in  the  records.  First,  an  attempt  was 
made,  while  accepting  the  Gospel  records  as  in  sub- 
stance true,  to  deprive  them  of  their  miraculous  char- 
acter by  naturalistic  explanations  of  the  facts.  This 
theory  was  effectually  exploded  by  Strauss.  He  felt 
that  for  any  such  purpose  it  was  necessary  to  get  rid 
altogether  of  the  historical  character  of  the  Gospels, 
and  he  endeavoured  to  account  for  them  by  the  sup- 
position that  the  whole  story  grew  up  as  a  myth. 
This  method  of  cutting  the  knot  was,  however,  felt  to 
be  insufficient,  and  subsequent  efforts,  of  which  M. 
Eenan  is  the  most  popular  exponent,  have,  like  Dr 
Abbott's,  endeavoured  to  separate  a  kernel  of  original 
fact,  which,  however  wonderful,  need  not  be  so  very 
miraculous,  from  subsequent  accretions  of  legend.  But, 
as  Dr  Salmon  forcibly  argues  in  the  sermon  to  which 
we  have  already  referred,  no  such  attempts  can  get  rid 
of  the  fact  that  the  belief  in  one  stupendous  miracle, 
at  all  events,  lies  at  the  root  of  the  whole  history  of 
the  Church.  If  there  ever  existed  a  Gospel  which  did 
not  contain  the  miraculous,  it  must  certainly  have 
been  earlier  than  the  Epistles  of  St  Paul ;  for  in  St 
Paul's  mind  our  Lord's  resurrection  is  one  of  the  most 
certain  of  facts,  and  is  the  keystone  of  his  whole 
preaching  :  "  If  there  be  no  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
then  is  Christ  not  risen  ;  and  if  Christ  be  not  risen, 
then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is  also 
vain."     But  it  is  unnecessary  to  come  down  to  even  so 


THE    speaker's    COMMENTARY.  309 

comparatively  early  a  date  as  that  of  St  Paul's  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  For  whether  men  believe 
or  disbelieve  in  our  Lord's  resurrection,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  at  all  about  the  date  at  which  such  a  belief 
arose.     To  quote  again  from  Dr  Salmon  : — 

"  If  a  year  had  elapsed,  if  six  months  had  elapsed,  from 
the  time  at  which  our  Lord  had  died  oa  the  cross  the  death 
of  shame,  and  if  during  all  that  time  no  sign  had  clouded 
over  the  completeness  of  the  triumph  of  His  enemies ;  if  His 
followers  had  for  so  long  a  time  been  forced  to  acquiesce  in 
the  conviction  that  He  who  had  saved  others  had  been  un- 
able to  save  Himself,  we  may  say  with  certainty  that  it 
would  have  been  impossible  to  revive  their  crushed  expecta- 
tions, and  that  one  who  should  then  first  come  to  them  with 
the  story  of  a  resurrection  would  find  them  in  no  state  of 
mind  to  give  it  credence.  Or,  take  the  thing  another  way. 
They  who  denying  a  real  resurrection  of  Jesus  attempt  to 
explain  the  rise  of  a  belief  in  it,  appeal  to  the  fact  that  there 
often  remains  on  the  mental  retina  the  image  of  a  luminous 
object  after  the  object  itself  has  been  withdrawn.  The  face 
long  familiar  and  long  loved  refuses  to  vanish  from  our 
mental  vision,  or  is  ever  starting  up  unbidden.  So  the 
minds  of  those  to  whom  Jesus  was  inexpressibly  dear,  and 
who  had  built  on  Him  all  their  hopes,  could  not  let  His 
image  go.  Their  prophet  could  not  die.  Thus,  whether  or 
not  Jesus  of  Nazareth  actually  did  rise  again,  it  was  inevi- 
table that  His  followers  should  believe  that  He  did.  I  shall 
not  discuss  whether  or  not  this  explanation  is  sufficient; 
but  it  is  evident  that  the  exaltation  of  mind  which  it 
assumes  on  the  part  of  our  Lord's  disciples  only  belongs  to 
the  time  when  their  loss  was  still  fresh.  It  is  not  conceiv- 
able after  the  time  when  that  first  poignancy  of  grief,  which 
refuses  to  realise  its  loss,  is  succeeded  by  that  dull  pain 
which  confesses  that  life  has  got  to  be  lived  on  after  all  that 
made  it  dear  has  gone." 

Thus,  as  Dr  Salmon  puts  it,  "  if  we  are  forbidden  to 
hold  the  article  of  the  present  creed  of  Christians,  '  On 


310  APPENDIX. 

the  third  day  He  rose  again  from  the  dead/  "  we  shall 
be  compelled  to  substitute,  "  On  or  about  the  third  day 
it  came  to  be  believed  that  He  rose  again  from  the 
dead."  It  follows  that  the  facts  of  chronology  allow 
no  place  at  all  for  a  non-miraculous  Gospel.  At  the 
very  earliest  date  at  which  our  Lord's  life  and  death 
can  have  been  put  into  writing,  the  story  of  the  resur- 
rection must  have  formed  an  essential  part  of  it.  No 
criticism,  therefore,  can  help  us  to  eliminate  this  miracle 
from  any  conceivable  record.  But  if  so,  then  certainly 
nothing  is  gained  in  point  of  credibility  by  paring 
down  records  of  secondary  miracles  in  other  portions 
of  the  narrative.  The  plain  truth  of  the  matter  is, 
that  we  must  either  accept  the  narratives  of  the 
Gospels  as  they  stand,  or  we  must  confess  ourselves 
practically  reduced  to  ignorance  respecting  the  mo- 
mentous subjects  with  which  they  are  occupied.  It  is 
conceivable,  certainly,  that  criticism  of  a  higher  type 
than  we  have  been  discussing — a  criticism  which  does 
not  seek  the  living  among  the  dead  by  expecting  to 
discover  the  relation  between  great  writers  in  the 
number  of  syllables  common  to  two  or  more  of  them 
— may  some  day  achieve  the  feat  of  detecting  in  our 
Gospels  fragments  of  older  documents.  The  preface 
to  St  Luke's  Gospel  renders  it  unquestionable  that 
such  documents  existed,  and  it  is  no  way  improbable 
that  they  were  used.  But  we  have  certainly  no  greater 
guarantee  for  the  truth  of  the  older  document  than  of 
the  later  ones.  Such  a  document  is  by  the  hypothesis 
anonymous,  and  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining 
either  its  date  or  its  authority.  If  we  give  up  the 
authenticity  of  the  Gospels  in  their  present  form,  we 
may  amuse  ourselves,  like  M.  Kenan,  with  writing  as 
many  romances  on  the  subject  as  we  please,  picking 


THE    speaker's    COMMENTARY.  311 

out  whatever  facts  we  like,  some  at  one  time  and  some 
at  another,  no  matter  whether  consistently  or  not ;  but 
we  have  no  means  of  constructing  an  account  of  the  life 
of  our  Lord,  or  of  the  labours  of  His  Apostles,  which 
can  lay  any  claim  whatever  to  a  historical  character. 

Accordingly,  the  real  question  at  issue  in  the  present 
day,  for  all  sober-minded  persons,  is  practically  the 
same  as  in  the  last  century — in  the  days  of  Lardner 
and  Paley :  Have  we  adequate  reason  for  believing 
that  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were 
written  by  the  persons  whose  names  they  bear,  and 
that  the  testimony  of  these  persons  is  to  be  trusted  ? 
On  the  second  question  we  apprehend  there  will  practi- 
cally be  no  dispute  nowadays.  The  veracity  and  the 
good  sense  of  the  first  preachers  and  teachers  of  Christi- 
anity is  beyond  question  with  any  persons  with  whom 
it  is  now  worth  while  to  argue.  The  only  difference 
between  our  day  and  that  of  Paley  is,  that  the  weight 
of  the  argument  has  been  shifted  to  the  prior  question 
— whether  St  Matthew,  St  Mark,  St  Luke,  and  St 
John  did  really  write  the  books  in  question.  It  is  for 
the  admirable  way  in  which  this  plain  question  is 
handled  that  we  recommend  the  Commentary  before 
us  so  strongly  to  public  attention.  But  it  may  not  be 
amiss  to  offer  a  few  observations  upon  the  order  in 
which  the  problem  may  be  most  conveniently  ap- 
proached. Perhaps,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the 
authenticity  of  the  early  history,  it  is  advantageous  to 
commence  with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  There  is  no 
practical  question  that  this  book  was  written  by  St 
Luke.  Of  course  it  is  only  too  well  known  that  Baur 
and  his  school  have  endeavoured  to  make  out  that  it 
is  a  production  of  later  date  than  apostolic  times, 
designed   to    facilitate    a    reconciliation    between    the 


312  APPENDIX. 

antagonistic  sections  of  the  Christian  Church  who  ad- 
hered to  the  special  views  of  St  Peter  and  St  Paul 
respectively.  But  it  is  not  sufficiently  well  known, 
perhaps,  by  those  who  are  inclined  to  welcome  the 
destructive  effect  of  these  views,  that  the  theory  is  now 
abandoned  even  by  Eenan.  After  a  full  consideration 
of  the  objections  by  the  school  of  Tiibingen,  Kenan 
says,  "  Je  persiste  a  croire  que  le  dernier  redacteur  des 
Actes  est  bien  le  disciple  de  Paul  qui  dit  nous  aux 
derniers  chapitres,"  "^ — in  other  words,  as  he  himself 
goes  on  to  argue,  no  other  than  St  Luke.  But  there 
is  also  no  practical  question  that  the  author  of  the 
Acts  is  also  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel,  and  of 
that  Gospel,  moreover,  in  the  form  and  with  the 
essential  characteristics  which  it  now  possesses.  As 
Canon  Cook  says  with  justice,  both  points — the 
identity  of  authorship  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts,  and 
the  authorship  by  a  companion  of  St  Paul — 

*'  are  now  generally  received  both  in  Germany  and  Prance, 
and  that  not  only  by  scholars  who  accept  unreservedly  the 
statements  and  notices  of  Holy  Writ,  but  by  those  who 
subject  all  its  contents  to  a  searching  and  jealous  scrutiny, 
even  by  many  who  reject  without  scruple  any  facts  involv- 
ing the  recognition  of  supernatural  interposition,  and  who 
readily  admit  attacks  upon  the  character  and  authority  of 
the  chief  representatives  of  early  Christendom." 

The  names  of  Credner  and  Bleek  in  Germany,  and 
of  Eenan  in  France,  are  sufficient  to  bear  out  this 
statement.  Kenan's  conclusion,  in  '  Les  Apotres,'  p.  x, 
is  again  worth  quotation  : — 

"  Une  chose  hors  de  doute,  c'est  que  les  Actes  ont  eu  le 
meme  auteur  que  le  troisi^me  Evangile,  et  sont  une  continu- 


^  Les  Apotres,  p.  xiv. 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTARY.  313 

ation  de  cet  Evangile.  .  .  .  Les  prefaces  qui  sont  en  tete 
des  deux  ecrits,  la  dedicace  de  I'un  et  de  I'autre  a  Th^ophile, 
la  parfaite  ressemblance  du  style  et  des  idees  fournissent 
a  cet  egard  d'abondantes  demonstrations." 

Credner  similarly  says  that  the  common  peculiarities 
of  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  "  prove  irrefragably  that 
the  author  of  the  third  Gospel,  the  physician  Luke, 
must  on  no  account  be  separated  from  the  author  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles." 

Xow  let  it  be  observed  to  what  these  confessions 
amount.  In  the  first  place,  they  involve  the  admis- 
sion that  the  whole  apostolic  history  contained  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  was,  in  its  present  form — Eenan 
says,  as  we  have  seen,  in  its  last  redaction — written 
and  revised  by  one  of  the  most  faitliful  companions  of 
St  Paul,  by  one  who  was  an  eye-witness  of  a  great 
part  of  the  events  he  relates,  and  who  consequently 
was  in  full  communication  with  other  Apostles  and 
contemporaries  of  Apostles.  If  this  were  all,  one  im- 
portant conclusion  would  seem  to  follow  at  once.  The 
old  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Church,  which  Christ- 
ians have  hitherto  accepted  on  the  faith  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  has  all  the  authority  of  the  strongest 
contemporary  evidence,  and  of  a  witness  who,  as  Paley 
argued,  staked  his  life  on  the  truth  of  his  testimony. 
The  whole  fabric  of  the  Tubingen  school  collapses  if 
the  admission,  or  rather  the  contention,  of  their  most 
eminent  pupil  be  admitted,  and  we  are  back  again 
within  the  long-standing  traditions  of  Christendom. 
But  it  is  surprising  that  a  further  consequence,  equally 
cogent,  is  not  perceived  by  those  who  make  these 
admissions,  or  who  are  aware  of  their  having  been 
made.  If  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  be  a  genuine  book, 
then  the  Gospel  of  St  Luke  is  also  genuine,  and  it  was 


314  APPENDIX. 

written  before  the  Acts.  In  other  words,  in  St  Luke's 
Gospel  we  have  a  narrative  of  all  the  essential  parts 
of  our  Lord's  life  and  ministry,  written  by  a  person 
who  was  a  contemporary  of  St  Paul  and  of  the  other 
Apostles.  The  claim  of  the  author  in  the  preface  is 
completely  justified : — 

"  Forasmuch  as  many  have  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth  in 
order  a  declaration  of  those  things  which  are  most  surely 
believed  among  us,  even  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us, 
which  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of 
the  Word ;  it  seemed  good  to  me  also,  having  had  perfect 
understanding  of  all  things  from  the  very  firsts  to  write  unto 
thee  in  order." 

We  may  go  back  another  step.  This  introductory 
statement  of  St  Luke  proves  that  before  he  wrote  the 
Acts,  and  before  he  wrote  the  Gospel,  "  many "  had 
taken  in  hand  to  reduce  to  writing,  and  to  set  forth  in 
order,  the  narrative  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  of  His  birth, 
death,  and  resurrection.  Within  the  lifetime,  there- 
fore, of  our  Lord's  own  companions  and  contemporaries, 
the  facts  in  question  were  formally  recorded  at  the 
mouth  of  eye-witnesses.  Even  supposing  that  St 
Luke's  Gospel  stood  alone,  with  this  evidence  of  its 
genuineness,  and  this  appeal  to  contemporary  persons 
and  contemporary  documents,  it  appears  to  us  that  no 
stronger  testimony  could  be  adduced  in  vindication  of 
the  real  occurrence  of  the  events  which  it  narrates — 
from  the  miraculous  Conception  to  the  miraculous 
Ascension. 

But  it  will  at  once  be  seen  that  this  consideration 
leads  to  still  further  consequences  of  the  greatest 
possible  weight  in  the  argument.  If  St  Luke's  Gos- 
pel be  the  record  of  the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses, 
there    is    certainly    nothing    in    the    contents    of    St 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTARY.  315 

Matthew's  and  St  Mark's  Gospels  inconsistent  with 
their  being  also  the  record  of  similar  testimony.  On 
the  contrary,  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that 
they  are  so,  and,  moreover,  that  they  belong  to  the 
same  early  date  as  St  Luke's  own  work.  Had  they 
been  written  after  St  Luke's  Gospel  had  been  long 
enough,  in  existence  to  be  generally  known,  and  by 
any  persons  of  less  authority  than  their  reputed 
authors,  it  is  improbable  they  would  have  deviated, 
as  they  do,  from  St  Luke's  method,  and  have  omit- 
ted so  much  that  he  relates.  But  if  all  the  three 
Gospels  were  written  within  the  same  generation,  at 
the  instance  of  different  Apostles,  and  to  illustrate 
the  aspects  of  our  Lord's  life  which  were  of  chief 
importance  to  those  for  whom  they  were  intended, 
their  combined  harmony  and  independence  is  per- 
fectly natural.  From  this  point  of  view  we  confess 
we  see  no  real  difficulty — little  more,  in  fact,  than 
a  curious  and  probably  insoluble  riddle  —  in  the 
problem  which  has  occupied  so  much  attention — 
that  of  their  combined  agreement  and  difference. 

"  As  regards  the  virtual  agreement  of  the  three  writers," 
says  Archbishop  Thomson,  "it  may  be  said  that  in  no 
other  case  would  it  be  possible  to  find  three  writers  so 
independent  as  to  their  matter,  who  showed  such  minute 
and  abundant  coincidences  of  expression;  and  that  no 
other  three  writers  have  shown  such  a  careful  adherence 
to  the  very  same  forms  of  expression,  who  have  also 
shown  so  great  an  independence  in  the  selection  and 
omission  of  subjects." — Introd.,  p.  ix. 

But  when  it  is  further  observed  that  "  by  far 
the  larger  portion  of  this  verbal  agreement  is  found 
in  the  recital  of  the  words  of  others,  and  particularly 
of  the  words  of  Jesus,"  a  sufficient  explanation  seems 


316  APPENDIX. 

to  us  at  once  apparent.  It  is  enougli  to  say,  that 
in  no  other  case  would  it  be  possible  to  find  three 
writers  who  were  dealing,  and  who  were  profoundly 
conscious  that  they  were  dealing,  with  words  of 
such  supreme  moment  and  of  such  divine  import. 
It  might  be  sufficient,  indeed,  from  a  Christian  point 
of  view,  to  refer  to  our  Lord's  express  promise  of 
divine  assistance  to  His  disciples  in  recalling  His 
words.  But  it  appears  hardly  necessary  to  call  in 
this  assistance  to  account  satisfactorily  for  the  pheno- 
menon. Our  Lord  attached  to  Himself  a  select  body 
of  disciples,  whose  express  mission  it  was  to  listen 
to  His  words,  and  to  be  able  to  bear  witness  to 
His  deeds.  Those  words  and  deeds  would  be  im- 
pressed upon  their  minds  by  the  most  solemn  of 
all  convictions ;  and  the  people  to  whom  they  be- 
longed were  peculiarly  tenacious  of  words.  Add 
to  this,  that  the  words  themselves  are  the  most 
pregnant  and  vivid  ever  uttered  among  men,  and 
the  problem  which  so  much  perplexes  that  mechan- 
ical criticism  of  which  we  have  spoken  seems  to 
vanish.  The  broad  result  remains,  that  we  have 
three  independent  and  harmonious  accounts  of  our 
Lord's  life  and  work,  with  respect  to  one  of  which 
even  hostile  criticism  is  forced  to  admit  that  it 
was  written  by  a  contemporary  and  perfectly  com- 
petent authority ;  while,  with  respect  to  the  other 
two,  all  internal  difficulties  vanish  with  this  admis- 
sion. 

Such  are  the  general  conclusions  which  appear 
to  us  so  effectively  brought  out  in  the  Introduction 
to  this  commentary ;  and  to  any  one  desirous  of 
apprehending  the  full  force  of  the  argument,  we 
would  recommend  a  perusal,   first  of   Canon   Cook's 


THE   speaker's   COMMENTARY.  317 

Introduction  to  the  Acts,  and  then  of  Archbishop 
Thomson's  Introduction  to  the  three  first  Gospels. 
The  Introduction  of  Canon  Cook  is  admirable  for 
the  thoroughness,  the  fairness,  and  the  historic  grasp 
with  which  he  discusses  every  detail  of  the  prob- 
lem before  him,  and  he  incidentally  throws  most 
interesting  light  on  the  characteristics  of  St  Luke's 
work  in  the  Gospel  as  well  as  in  the  Acts.  The 
theories  of  the  leading  German  writers  and  of  M. 
Kenan  are  dealt  with  point  by  point,  though  in  no 
mere  controversial  spirit.  The  internal  and  external 
evidences  of  authorship,  the  historical  character  of 
the  book  as  a  whole,  and  particularly  of  the  dis- 
courses it  records,  the  numerous  points  of  minute 
accuracy  which  it  exhibits, — all  are  illustrated  with 
equal  learning,  lucidity,  and  moderation. 

Archbishop  Thomson's  Introduction  is  marked  by 
merits  of  a  somewhat  different  kind.  There  is 
apparent  throughout  it  the  impatience  of  a  vigor- 
ous common-sense  with  the  subtle  and  inconsistent 
schemes  he  is  discussing ;  as,  for  instance,  when  he 
summarises  the  results  of  criticism  on  St  Matthew's 
Gospel. 

"  Perhaps,"  he  says,  "•  one  of  its  uses  is  to  teach  us  what 
it  cannot  do,  and  here  its  witness  agrees  not  together. 
According  to  divers  writers,  Matthew  is  the  oldest  writer 
and  not  the  oldest;  a  Greek  writer,  but  a  Hebrew;  his 
work  the  foundation  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  but  drawn 
from  that  earlier,  simpler  record;  it  is  the  work  of  an 
Apostle,  but  there  are  positive  reasons  against  regarding 
it  as  from  an  Apostle's  hand.  Its  line  of  teaching  is  clear 
and  consistent;  yet  with  skilful  knife  we  can  dissect 
out  the  various  fibres  of  tendencies  which  make  it  so 
manifold  and  so  little  consistent  with  itself.  Its  unity 
is   self-evident;  and   yet   it   never   continued  for    two    de- 


318  APPENDIX. 

cades  the  same,  so  active  were  the  editors  in  making  it 
afresh.  Its  inconsistencies  with  the  other  Gospels  start 
out  to  careless  eyes ;  and  yet  many  hands  were  constantly 
at  work  bringing  one  Gospel  to  bear  on  another,  and 
altering  each  by  the  light  of  the  other.  These  being  the 
results,  we  have  a  right  to  suspect  the  method  :  it  is  even 
allowable  to  doubt  whether  there  can  be  any  true  prin- 
ciples on  which  results  so  discordant  can  be  based." — 
Introd.,  p.  xxxi. 

"We  need  a  little  of  this  rough  common-sense  to  be 
brought  to  bear  on  the  fine-spun  theories  with  which 
the  world  has  of  late  been  perplexed.  But  the 
Archbishop  is,  perhaps,  strongest  in  bringing  out  the 
substantial  life  and  truth  which  the  evangelical  narra- 
tives present,  and  in  urging  the  unreasonableness  of 
imagining  that  such  a  result  could  have  been  produced 
by  the  artificial  and  piecemeal  composition  assumed  by 
sceptical  theories  for  the  origin  of  the  Gospels.  It  is 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  facts  in  the  case  that,  with 
all  their  brevity,  the  Gospels  are  proved  by  the  ex- 
perience of  history  to  have  produced  the  most  vivid 
portraiture  of  a  living  person  ever  presented  to  the 
world.  The  fact  that  different  views  are  taken  of  this 
Person,  that  His  acts  are  differently  understood  and 
interpreted,  in  no  way  conflicts  with  this  main  result. 
It  simply  shows  that  the  Person  as  thus  depicted  is  in 
just  the  same  position  as  if  He  were  living  among  us 
— in  the  same  position,  in  fact,  as  when  He  was  upon 
earth.  He  is  understood  and  appreciated  variously  in 
proportion  to  the  capacity,  the  moral  and  intellectual 
disposition,  of  those  who  hear  Him  and  behold  Him. 
Accordingly,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  within  the 
first  century  after  Christ  every  view  of  His  life  and 
character  which  has  since  been  put  forward  was  in 
substance  represented.      But  no  one  can  doubt  that, 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTARY.  319 

allowing  for  these  inevitable  variations,  the  character 
of  Christ,  as  represented  in  the  Gospels,  has  stamped 
itself  upon  the  mind,  alike  of  the  Church  and  of  the 
world,  with  a  greater  vividness  and  certainty  than  any- 
other  character  in  history :  its  life  and  its  influence 
have  radiated  beyond  the  circle  of  those  to  whom  the 
Gospels  are  a  constant  companion ;  and  it  lives  almost 
unconsciously,  among  foes  as  well  as  among  friends,  as 
a  potent  moral  and  spiritual  force. 

"  If,"  says  the  Archbishop,  "  it  could  be  seriously  appre- 
hended that  the  Church  and  mankind  would  ever  allow  itself 
to  be  robbed  of  the  divine  picture  and  presentment  of  Christ 
because  of  some  real  or  fancied  discrepancy  between  the  four 
Evangelists,  that  it  would  part  with  the  precious  substance  of 
harmony  for  the  sake  of  some  shadow  of  harmony,  never  to 
be  found  in  any  books,  and  never  promised  to  us  in  these, 
then  we  might  tremble  for  the  future  of  religion.  But  they 
have  come  down  to  us  so  far,  not  upon  the  strength  of  a 
historical  argument  that  they  were  indeed  what  they  are 
supposed  to  be,  but  upon  the  inward  force,  by  which  they 
first  show  us  Christ,  and  then  lead  us  captive  to  Christ. 
Never  man  spake  like  this  man;  never  was  love  like  this 
love ;  never  such  a  life  was  seen  on  earth  before  ;  never  did 
the  dream  of  poet,  never  the  instinct  of  hero  -  worship, 
imagine  such  a  being  with  such  wisdom  on  his  lips,  such 
love  in  his  heart,  with  a  character  so  balanced  and  complete, 
with  claims  so  outspoken  and  so  lofty,  joined  to  so  profound 
a  humility  and  so  gentle  a  kindness  towards  the  gainsayer. 
If  indeed,  as  Geiger  and  others  tell  us,  he  is  but  a  disciple 
of  Hillel,  following  exactly  in  his  master's  footsteps,  let  us 
see  this  Hillel  brought  forth,  that  we  may  admire  another, 
also  divine.  Every  one  knows,  and  Delitzsch  has  taken  the 
trouble  to  show,  that  there  is  indeed  no  comparison  possible. 
The  two  genealogies  may  be  difficult;  the  taxing  of  Cyrenius 
a  perpetual  problem ;  the  day  of  the  last  passover  may 
exercise  critics  to  the  end.  But  do  or  do  not  the  four 
Gospels  conduct  us  into  the  presence  of  the  same  Jesus  1 


320  APPENDIX. 

This  is  the  real  issue.  The  Church  has  long  since  settled 
her  conviction  on  this  point ;  in  the  Gospels,  each  and  all, 
she  has  known  Christ." — Introd.,  p.  Ivii. 

These  considerations  furnish  the  best  introduction 
to  the  other  great  branch  of  the  controversy  with 
which  these  volumes  had  to  deal — that,  namely,  which 
concerns  the  Gospel  according  to  St  John.  Here, 
again,  it  is  only  reasonable  to  start  from  the  broad 
fact  that  the  consciousness  of  Christians  has,  from  the 
earliest  days  of  the  Church  to  the  present  time,  recog- 
nised a  complete  unity  between  the  description  of  our 
Lord  and  of  His  teaching  as  presented  by  the  fourth 
Gospel,  and  that  which  is  presented  by  the  three 
others.  It  is  certainly  a  different  picture — a  picture 
drawn,  as  it  were,  from  another  point  of  view,  ex- 
hibiting the  character  in  new  scenery,  and  in  relation 
to  other  circumstances.  But  the  instinct  of  the  Church 
for  eighteen  centuries  ought  to  be  sufficient  proof  that 
there  is  no  real  variance  between  the  two  aspects. 
An  assumption,  however,  of  such  a  variance  lies  at  the 
basis  of  all  modern  assaults  on  the  authenticity  of  St 
John's  Gospel.  As  we  observed  at  the  outset,  it  is 
alleged  to  be  full  of  Alexandrian  metaphysics,  and  the 
discourses  it  attributes  to  our  Lord  are  pronounced 
incompatible  with  His  style  of  teaching,  as  exhibited 
in  the  first  three  Gospels.  It  would  seem  a  satis- 
factory answer  to  this  objection  to  say  that  the 
point  is  eminently  one  to  be  decided  by  the  general 
sense  of  readers  of  all  ages,  and  not  by  the  private 
and  singular  opinions  of  a  few  modern  critics.  As 
we  have  said,  such  questions  can  only  be  fairly 
judged  by  those  who  are  in  sympathy  with  the  main 
current  of  teaching  in  the  book  or  books  in  question. 
M.    Kenan    sees   arid  metaphysics   in   the   discourses 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTAEY.  321 

in  St  John.  The  all  but  unanimous  feeling  of  the 
Christian  Church  of  all  ages,  of  Christians  of  all 
classes,  cultured  or  uncultured,  has  been  that  these 
discourses  are  neither  arid  nor  metaphysical,  but  ani- 
mated by  the  deepest  and  truest  feeling,  and  that 
they  touch  the  most  vital  chords  in  human  nature. 
On  any  other  subject,  if  a  critic  found  himself 
conspicuously  at  variance  with  the  almost  uniform 
verdict  of  mankind,  he  would  probably  have  the 
modesty  to  begin  to  suspect  himself ;  and  at  all 
events  he  would  hesitate  to  make  his  idiosyncrasy 
the  foundation  of  a  new  theory  respecting  the  origin 
of  the  writings  in  question.  Yet  this  is  precisely 
the  case  with  the  question  of  the  trustworthiness 
of  St  John's  Gospel.  It  has  made  at  least  as 
deep  an  impression  as  either  of  the  others  upon 
the  mind  of  Christians ;  it  has  entwined  itself  with 
their  innermost  convictions,  and  has  furnished  an 
integral  part  of  all  Christian  thought ;  and  they 
are  now  asked  to  suspect  it,  on  the  ground  that  to 
a  few  French  and  German  critics,  and  to  their  fol- 
lowers in  this  country,  all  this  conviction  of  the 
unity  of  the  four  Gospels  is  an  illusion,  and  all 
this  deep  interest  in  our  Lord's  last  discourses  is 
imaginary  !  It  ought  to  be  recognised  at  the  outset 
that  the  whole  burden  of  proof,  and  that  an  enor- 
mous one,  lies  against  critics  who  advance  such  an 
assertion.  Of  course,  if  definite  evidence  can  be 
adduced  to  prove  the  late  fabrication  of  St  John's 
Gospel,  there  is  an  end  of  the  matter,  and  we  must 
accept  the  result — notwithstanding  the  tremendous 
shock  it  would  give,  not  only  to  the  Christian  faith, 
but  to  our  confidence  in  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
moral    and   spiritual    instincts   of   mankind.      But   it 

X 


322  APPENDIX. 

ought  to  be  distinctly  recognised  that  it  is  the  neg- 
ative, and  not  the  positive  evidence,  of  whicli  it 
may  be  demanded  in  such  a  case  that  it  should  be 
irrefragable.  The  harmony  between  the  traditionary, 
or  primd  facie,  account  of  the  origin  of  St  John's 
Gospel  and  the  facts  of  Christian  thought  and  experi- 
ence is  so  complete,  that  we  have  a  right  to  demand 
something  like  a  demonstration  before  we  abandon 
the  belief  which  is  in  possession  of  the  ground. 

We  dwell  on  these  considerations  because  they 
afford  us  the  best  means  of  estimating  the  position 
assumed  by  the  most  prominent  representative  of 
sceptical  criticism  on  this  subject  in  the  present  day. 
M.  Eenan  practically  avows  that  he  has  really  no 
more  solid  ground  to  go  upon  in  rejecting  the  claims 
of  St  John's  Gospel  than  his  own  private  inability 
to  appreciate  the  discourses  of  the  Saviour  there 
recorded.  In  a  very  interesting  article  contributed 
last  year  (1880)  to  the  Paris  '  Eevue  Chretienne,' 
M.  Godet  has  drawn  attention  to  the  remarkable 
fluctuations  of  opinion  which  M.  Eenan  has  exhibited 
on  this  question.  In  the  early  editions  of  his  '  Vie 
de  J^sus '  he  acknowledged  himself  greatly  impressed 
by  the  indications  of  authenticity  presented  by  the 
narrative  portions  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  He  dwelt 
on  the  slight  traits  of  precision,  the  extraordinary 
freshness  of  the  reminiscences  of  old  age  which  it 
exhibits,  as  bespeaking  its  composition  by  an  eye- 
witness— by  the  very  Apostle  whose  name  it  bears. 
But  he  excepted  the  discourses  of  the  Saviour.  These 
seemed  to  him  pretentious  and  dull  tirades,  having 
little  moral  meaning.  Accordingly,  in  the  manner 
customary  with  him,  he  used  without  hesitation  as 
many    of    the    facts    in    St    John's    narrative    as    he 


THE    speaker's    COMMENTARY.  323 

pleased,  while  lie  inclined  to  the  belief  that  the  dis- 
courses could  not  have  been  reported  by  the  son 
of  Zebedee.  But  in  the  thirteenth  edition  of  the 
same  work  M.  Eenan  added  a  long  appendix,  in 
which  the  question  is  discussed  in  full.  He  con- 
fesses himself  still  struck  with  the  indications  of 
authenticity  in  the  narrative ;  he  pronounces  that 
the  decided  adversaries  of  the  traditional  view  im- 
pose on  themselves  a  difficult  task  in  tracing  in 
such  touches  the  hand  of  a  forger.  But  he  comes 
back  at  last  to  his  old  difficulty,  that  of  the  dis- 
courses ;  and  he  is  unable  to  understand  how  all 
these  metaphysics  —  these  long  pieces  of  theology 
and  of  rhetoric,  as  he  still  regards  them — can  have 
come  from  the  hand  of  the  fisherman  of  Galilee. 
So  far,  as  M.  Godet  observes,  the  hesitation  he  ex- 
presses does  credit  to  his  desire  to  be  impartial. 
In  the  end  he  says  that  this  question  of  the  author- 
ship of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  certainly  the  most 
singular  in  literary  history. 

"  I  do  not  know,"  he  says,  "  any  question  of  criticism 
where  contrary  appearances  are  so  balanced,  and  hold  the 
mind  more  completely  in  suspense."  ^  "  Of  two  things, 
one,"  he  adds;  "either  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
is  a  disciple  of  Jesus  —  an  intimate  disciple  and  of  the 
earliest  date — or  else  the  author,  in  order  to  procure  him- 
self authority,  has  employed  an  artifice  from  the  beginning 
of  the  book  to  the  end,  for  the  purpose  of  making  it 
believed  that  he  was  a  witness  in  the  best  possible  position 
for  stating  the  truth  of  the  facts." 

In  the  latter  case,  as  he  admits,  the  author  would 
be  no  mere  collector  of  legends ;  he  would  be  a  forger : 
"  c'est  un  faussaire."     He  acknowledges  the  extreme 

1  Vie  de  Jesus,  ed.  15,  p.  537. 


324  APPENDIX. 

improbability  of  the  book  being  due  to  a  writer  of  this 
character ;  and  concludes  that  at  the  first  coup  d'wil 
"  it  seems  that  the  most  natural  hypothesis  is  to  admit 
that  all  these  writings  " — the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles 
— "  are  really  the  work  of  John,  the  son  of  Zebedee." 
What  considerations  has  he  to  oppose  to  this  con- 
clusion ?  An  opinion  that  the  book  "  is  too  little 
cited  " — not  that  it  is  not  cited  at  all — "  in  the  most 
ancient  Christian  literature ; "  that  nothing  is  less 
like  what  one  would  expect  from  the  son  of  Zebedee ; 
that  the  Greek  in  which  it  is  written  differs  from 
the  Palestinian  Greek  of  the  other  Gospels ;  and 
"  above  all,"  that  the  ideas  are  of  an  entirely  different 
order.  "  We  are  here  amidst  complete  metaphysics  of 
the  school  of  Philo,  and  almost  of  Gnosticism ;  the 
discourses  of  Jesus  reported  by  this  supposed  witness, 
this  intimate  disciple,  are  false,  often  insipid,  im- 
possible." -^  Lastly,  there  is  the  difficulty  arising  from 
a  comparison  of  the  style  of  the  Gospel  with  that  of 
the  Apocalypse.  Now  if  we  put  out  of  account  the 
difference  in  the  style,  which  may  be  variously  ac- 
counted for,  to  what  do  these  counter-considera- 
tions amount  ?  Practically,  to  no  more  than  M. 
Eenan's  opinion,  that  the  discourses  attributed  to  our 
Lord  are  insipid  and  impossible  !  The  concurrent 
weight  of  all  other  internal  evidence,  and  the  con- 
tinuous tradition  of  the  Church,  are  to  be  set  aside, 
because  M.  Eenan  finds  discourses  insipid  which 
Christians  for  eighteen  centuries  have  cherished  as 
among  the  most  precious  parts  of  the  sacred  volume  ! 
And  this  is  the  kind  of  criticism  on  which  the 
romances  have  been  built,  to  which  M.  Eenan  owes 
his  chief  reputation. 

^  Vie  de  Jesus,  ed.  15,  p.  539. 


THE    speaker's    COMMENTARY.  325 

M.  Eenan  was  not,  in  fact,  prepared,  in  the  appendix 
we  have  quoted,  to  pronounce  definitely  so  extra- 
ordinary a  verdict,  and  he  left  the  matter  in  some 
doubt,  still  vindicating,  however,  his  right  to  use  the 
facts  narrated  in  the  Gospel  as  much  as  he  thought 
good.  But  at  length,  in  the  volume  entitled  '  L'Eglise 
Chretienne,'  published  in  1879,  he  has  decided  in 
favour  of  his  dislike  to  the  discourses,  and  against  all 
the  evidence  he  had  recognised.  He  is,  indeed,  far 
from  withdrawing  his  previous  admissions  respecting 
the  excellences  of  the  narrative.  "The  fourth  Gospel," 
he  says,  "  though  a  writing  of  no  value  for  the  purpose 
of  knowing  how  Jesus  spoke,  is  superior  to  the  Synop- 
tic Gospels  in  respect  to  matters  of  fact"  (p.  58). 
There  are  traits  "  which  assert  for  the  pseudo-John 
a  superior  historic  value  to  Mark  and  the  pseudo- 
Matthew "  (p.  59).  But  we  come  back  to  the  old 
objection,  and  are  told  that  "nothing  is  more  fatiguing" 
(p.  51)  than  the  long  discussions  in  the  Gospel.  The 
conclusion  at  length  reached,  or  suggested,  is  that  the 
book  may  have  been  written  by  a  disciple  of  the 
Apostle,  who,  some  twenty-five  years  after  his  death, 
thought  himself  authorised  to  speak  in  his  name.  But 
once  launched  in  this  region  of  conjecture,  M.  Eenan 
makes  a  still  wilder  venture,  and  actually  suggests 
that  one  of  the  persons  who  were  concerned  with  the 
forging  of  the  Johannine  writings  was  the  Gnostic 
Cerinthus — the  very  heretic  against  whom,  according 
to  all  tradition,  they  were  written  !  It  is  surely  un- 
necessary to  say  anything  more  in  answer  to  such  a 
supposition  than  that  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St 
John,  lived  till  the  year  155  or  156 — a  quarter  of 
a  century  after  the  supposed  forgery — and  that  his 
disciple,  Irenaeus,  a  strenuous  opponent,  moreover,  of 


326  '      APPENDIX. 

Gnosticism,  treats  the  Gospel  without  the  slightest 
hesitation  as  the  work  of  St  John.  The  position  of 
Polycarp  and  Irenaeus  really  decides  the  question  for 
any  one  who  prefers  definite  historic  testimony  to  his 
own  fancies.  The  case  is  excellently  summarised  as 
follows  by  Canon  Westcott,  Introd.,  p.  xxx : — - 

"  It  is,  however,  with  Polycarp  and  Papias  that  the  deci- 
sive testimony  to  St  John's  writings  really  begins.  Eecent 
investigations,  independent  of  all  theological  interests,  have 
fixed  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp  in  155-56  a.d.  (see 
Lightfoot,  '  Contemporary  Eeview,'  1875,  p.  838).  At  the 
time  of  his  death  he  had  been  a  Christian  for  eighty-six 
years  (Mart.  Polyc,  c.  ix.).  He  must  then  have  been  alive 
during  the  greater  part  of  St  John's  residence  in  Asia,  and 
there  is  no  reason  for  questioning  the  truth  of  the  statements, 
that  he  *  associated  with  the  Apostles  in  Asia,' — e.g.,  John, 
Andrew,  Philip  (comp.  Lightfoot's  *  Colossians,'  p.  45  f.) — 
'and  was  intrusted  with  the  oversight  of  the  Church  in 
Smyrna  by  those  who  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of 
the  Lord'  (Euseb.,  H.  E.,  iii.  26;  comp.  Iren.,  c.  Hser.,  iii. 
3,  4).  Thus,  like  St  John  himself,  he  lived  to  unite  two 
ages.  "When  already  old,  he  used  to  speak  to  his  scholars  of 
his  intercourse  '  with  John  and  the  rest  of  those  who  had 
seen  the  Lord '  (Iren.,  Ep.  ad  Flor.,  §  2) ;  and  Iren^eus,  in 
his  later  years,  vividly  recalled  the  teaching  which  he  had 
heard  from  him  as  a  boy  (Iren.,  1.  c;  comp.  c.  User.,  iii. 
3,  ^).  There  is  no  room  in  this  brief  succession  for  the 
introduction  of  new  writings  under  the  name  of  St  John. 
Irenffius  cannot  with  any  reason  be  supposed  to  have  assigned 
to  the  fourth  GosjDel  the  place  which  he  gives  to  it  unless  he 
had  received  it  with  the  sanction  of  Polycarp.  The  j^erson 
of  Polycarp,  the  living  sign  of  the  unity  of  the  faith  of  the 
first  and  second  centuries,  is  in  itself  a  sure  proof  of  the 
apostolicity  of  the  Gospel.  Is  it  conceivable  that  in  his 
lifetime  such  a  revolution  was  accomplished  that  his  disciple 
Irenaeus  was  not  only  deceived  as  to  the  authorship  of  the 
book,  but  was  absolutely  unaware  that  the  continuity  of  the 
tradition  in  which  he  boasted  had  been  completely  broken  1 " 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTARY.  82*7 

M.  Kenan  has  acquired  of  late  such  unwarrantable 
influence  in  some  quarters,  that  it  would  seem  worth 
while  thus  to  draw  attention  to  the  baselessness  and 
the  inconsistency  of  his  speculations  on  one  of  the 
most  vital  points  in  this  great  controversy.  But  we 
are  chiefly  concerned  with  him  for  the  reason  previ- 
ously mentioned.  It  would  appear  to  be  the  main 
result  of  the  long  critical  war,  in  which  he  is  now  the 
last  and  most  prominent  combatant  on  the  negative 
side,  that  the  issue  really  turns  on  the  question  of  the 
spiritual  meaning  and  moral  force  of  the  words  and 
discourses  attributed  to  our  Lord' in  the  fourth  Gospel. 
A  man  need  not  be  an  "  apologist " — he  may  even  be 
a  disciple  of  M.  Kenan — in  order  to  acknowledge  that 
every  other  consideration  is  in  favour  of  the  old  tradi- 
tion that  the  Gospel  is  really  the  work  of  St  John, 
the  beloved  disciple.  When  the  question,  after  long 
debate,  is  thus  fairly  reduced  to  this  issue,  there  cannot, 
we  think,  be  the  slightest  practical  doubt  how  the 
common-sense  of  the  great  majority  of  unprejudiced 
minds  will  decide  it.  There  may  be  persons,  like  M. 
Kenan,  who  will  always  remain  impenetrable  to  the 
spiritual  force  of  the  discourses  reported  in  the  Gospel. 
But  no  real  weight  will  attach  in  the  long-run  to  these 
idiosyncrasies.  Objections  founded  on  such  private 
opinions  and  prejudices  have,  indeed,  been  advanced  of 
late  with  inconceivable  presumptuousness.  Mr  Matthew 
Arnold,  for  instance,  is  always  ready  to  pronounce 
that  certain  words  "  were  either  a  mistake,  or  they 
are  not  really  the  very  words  Jesus  said,"  ^  simply  be- 
cause Mr  Arnold  himself  cannot  understand  them.  Dr 
Abbott,  in  the  article  on  the  Gospels  already  referred 
to,  can  similarly  urge  that  "  it  is  difiicult  to  believe  " 

^  Literature  and  Dogma,  p.  151. 


328  APPENDIX. 

that  our  Lord  uttered  certain  parables  in  their  present 
shape ;  and  for  his  part  he  would  draw  quite  the 
opposite  moral  from  the  parable  of  the  Unjust  Judge 
from  that  which  is  said  to  have  been  drawn  by  our 
Lord.  One  would  think  it  might  occur  to  writers  of 
this  school  that,  supposing  the  passages  in  question  to 
have  been  really  spoken  by  our  Lord,  it  is  possible  His 
meaning  may  escape  their  comprehension  or  even  be 
beyond  it.  The  excellent  saying  which  is  attributed 
to  the  present  Master  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,^ 
at  a  meeting  of  Fellows,  might  with  advantage  be  re- 
commended to  such  critics.  "  Let  us  remember  that 
we  are  none  of  us  infallible — not  even  the  youngest 
of  us."  It  is  possible,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  that  the 
convictions  of  Christian  divines  respecting  the  pro- 
found significance  of  our  Lord's  words  in  St  John's 
Gospel  and  elsewhere  are  true.  But  the  admission  of 
the  possibility  leaves  us  face  to  face  with  the  simple 
historic  evidence ;  and,  as  we  have  endeavoured  to 
illustrate,  the  result  of  the  great  critical  debate  of  the 
last  two  generations  is  that  the  balance  of  this  evidence 
is  decisively  in  favour  of  the  old  traditions. 

It  was,  however,  of  the  utmost  importance,  that  in 
respect  to  St  John's  Gospel  these  facts  and  truths 
should  be  developed  in  the  '  Speaker's  Commentary ' 
by  a  master-hand ;  and  this  immense  service  has  been 
rendered  by  Canon  Westcott.  In  a  most  exhaustive 
Introduction  he  has  examined  minutely  all  the  questions 
which  have  been  raised  respecting  the  Gospel.  He 
has  adduced  a  mass  of  interesting  considerations  from 
internal  evidence,  which  show  the  author  to  have  been 
a  Jew,  a  Jew  of  Palestine,  an  eye-witness,  and  an 
Apostle,  and  that  this  Apostle  could  be  no  other  than 

1  The  late  Dr  Thompson. 


THE    speaker's    COMMENTARY.  329 

St  John.  He  has  analysed  in  detail  the  plan,  the 
style,  the  historic  exactness  of  the  book,  and  has 
discussed  most  thoroughly  its  relation  to  the  other 
apostolic  writings.  He  has  shown  the  vital  distinc- 
tion of  St  John's  doctrine  of  the  Logos  from  that  of 
Philo  and  the  Alexandrian  school.  Above  all,  both 
in  the  Introduction  and  in  the  exhaustive  notes  of  the 
Commentary,  he  has  brought  out  the  intense  vital  and 
moral  force  inherent  in  the  characteristic  elements  of 
the  Gospel.  In  parts  of  this  criticism,  indeed,  he 
had  been  in  some  measure  preceded  by  Dr  Sanday,  in 
his  excellent  book  on  the  '  Authorship  and  Historical 
Character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel ' ;  but  the  whole  sub- 
ject has  been  treated  afresh  with  a  wealth  of  thought, 
as  well  as  of  learning,  which  it  would  be  difficult  to 
parallel  in  any  other  work  on  the  same  subject.  Lest 
we  should  seem  to  be  giving  too  indiscriminate  praise, 
we  will  venture  an  opinion  that  the  analysis  is  some- 
times too  minute  and  over-refined ;  and  this  defect,  or 
excess,  of  criticism  appears,  perhaps,  still  more  strongly 
in  the  Commentary  than  in  the  Introduction.  But  if 
it  be  an  error,  it  is  an  error  prompted  by  profound 
study  and  by  ardent  enthusiasm.  We  do  not  hesitate 
to  say  that,  combining  the  Introduction  and  the  Com- 
mentary, the  English  reader  is  placed  in  a  position 
of  advantage  for  studying  this  Gospel  such  as  has 
not  hitherto  been  enjoyed  by  even  the  most  learned 
scholars.  The  work  must  have  been  one  of  years,  and 
Canon  Westcott  has  placed  the  Church  under  an  in- 
calculable obligation  by  such  a  contribution  to  its 
resources  for  understanding  the  Scriptures. 

Before  dismissing  this  subject,  our  readers  will  be 
glad  to  be  informed  of  a  most  important  addition  to 
our  materials  for  jSTew  Testament  criticism,  to  which 


330  APPENDIX. 

we  referred  at  the  commencement  of  this  article,  and 
which  has  only  just  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  the 
learned  world.  An  American  divine,  indeed,  Dr  Ezra 
Abbot — to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  English 
divine  with  a  similar  name,  whose  strange  theories  we 
have  noticed  above — called  attention  to  the  discovery, 
in  a  valuable  summary  he  published  last  year  of  the 
external  evidence  in  support  of  St  John's  Gospel. 
But  we  believe  that  no  account  of  it  has  yet  been 
given  in  any  English  book,  and  it  was  only  a  few 
weeks  ago  that  it  was  noticed  as  it  deserves  in  Ger- 
many. A  few  words  of  explanation  will  explain  its 
importance.  The  monstrous  theory  as  to  the  late 
origin  of  our  Gospels  maintained  by  the  author  of 
'  Supernatural  Eeligion '  obliged  him  to  deny  not  only 
that  Justin  Martyr  was  acquainted  with  St  John's 
Gospel,  but  even  with  any  of  the  other  three.  A 
great  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  this  theory  was 
the  fact  that  Justin's  pupil  Tatian  was  not  only  ac- 
quainted with  all  four  Gospels,  but  digested  them  into 
a  single  narrative,  or  '  Harmony,'  known  by  the  name 
of  '  Diatessaron.'  Against  this  difficulty  the  author  of 
'  Supernatural  Eeligion '  struggled  with  his  character- 
istic recklessness  of  assertion.  There  was  no  authority 
for  saying  that  Tatian's  Gospel  was  a  harmony  of  four 
Gospels  at  all ;  the  name  '  Diatessaron '  was  not  given 
to  it  by  Tatian  himself ;  no  writer  before  the  fifth 
century  had  seen  the  work ;  Tatian  did  not  compose 
any  harmony  at  all,  but  simply  made  use  of  the  same 
Gospel  as  his  master,  Justin  Martyr — namely,  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  In  the  '  Contem- 
porary Eeview '  for  May  1877,  Bishop  Lightfoot,  with 
his  usual  thoroughness,  collected  all  that  ancient  writ- 
ers had  told  us  about  Tatian's  work,  and  showed  how 


THE    SPEAKERS    COMMENTARY.  331 

entirely  opposed  to  the  evidence  were  the  assertions 
we  have  quoted.  But  even  when  Lightfoot  wrote, 
new  evidence  had  come  to  light,  of  which  he  was  not 
at  the  time  aware,  removing  all  need  for  indirect 
argumentation  as  to  the  character  of  Tatian's  '  Diates- 
saron,'  by  enabling  us,  in  a  great  measure,  to  restore 
the  work  itself.  It  was  already  known  that  the  cele- 
brated Syrian  Father,  Ephraim  (who  died  about  378), 
wrote  an  exposition  of  it.  Of  this  exposition  an 
Armenian  translation  has  been  preserved.  It  was 
even  printed  so  far  back  as  1836,  and  was  translated 
into  Latin  in  1841  by  Aucher,  of  the  Mechitarist 
Monastery  at  Venice;  and  this  translation,  amended 
and  annotated,  was  published  by  Dr  George  Moesinger 
in  1876.  Even  this  translation  of  Moesinger  has  as 
yet  attracted  but  scant  attention.  With  all  the  rapidity 
of  modern  communication,  it  is  strange  that  literary 
news  should  travel  so  slowly  that  a  new  mine  could 
be  open  for  forty-five  years,  and  have  been  made  per- 
fectly accessible  for  five  years,  before  any  rush  of 
scholars  was  made  to  its  treasures.  Moesinger's  work 
was  made  use  of  by  Abbot  (p.  55),  as  we  have  already 
mentioned ;  and  through  him  it  seems  to  have  become 
known  to  Dr  Harnack,  who  has  just  published  a  very 
full  account  of  it  in  the  last  number  of  Brieger's 
'  Zeitschrift  flir  Kirchengeschichte.'  Our  readers  can 
easily  imagine  what  important  use  can  be  made,  both 
in  the  study  of  the  iSTew  Testament  text  and  of  certain 
problems  of  primitive  Church  History,  of  a  harmony 
of  the  Gospels  written  so  soon  as  the  third  quarter  of 
the  second  century.  Harnack  pronounces  this  to  be 
the  most  important  of  recent  discoveries,  entitled  to 
rank  even  above  Bryennius's  recovery  of  the  missing 
portion  of  St  Clement's  Epistle.  We  shall  not  attempt  to 


332  APPENDIX. 

decide  the  invidious  question,  with  which  of  the  newly 
recovered  treasures  we  should  now  be  most  sorry  to 
part;  but  it  may  be  owned  that,  in  the  department 
of  New  Testament  criticism,  for  which  the  discovery 
of  Bryennius  did  little  or  nothing,  the  restoration 
of  Tatian's  '  Diatessaron '  makes  a  more  important 
addition  to  our  stores  than  any  gain  that  has  been 
made  since  Tischendorf's  discovery  of  the  Sinaitic 
Manuscript, 

We  must  not  mislead  our  readers,  however,  when 
we  speak  of  the  restoration  of  Tatian's  'Diatessaron.' 
The  restoration  does  not  pretend  to  be  perfect.  What 
has  been  recovered  is  not  the  work  itself,  but  Ephraim's 
commentary  on  it ;  and  we  only  gain  the  '  Diatessaron  ' 
so  far  as  it  is  possible  to  separate  text  from  commen- 
tary. This  cannot  always  be  done  with  certainty,  so 
that  there  are  cases  where  we  cannot  be  sure  whether 
what  we  read  is  Ephraim's  or  Tatian's.  We  cannot  be 
sure,  either,  that  Ephraim  does  not  skip,  and  so  his 
silence  does  not  warrant  us  in  asserting  that  this  or 
that  verse  which  he  leaves  out  was  absent  from  Tatian's 
Harmony.  Nor,  again,  can  we  be  sure,  when  Ephraim 
quotes  passages  not  immediately  before  him,  that  he 
does  not  quote  from  memory.  But  when  every  allow- 
ance has  been  made  for  possible  inaccuracy  in  the 
inferences  we  draw  from  the  testimony  of  our  new 
witness,  it  remains  that  a  flood  of  light  has  been 
poured  on  the  whole  subject  of  Tatian's  Harmony ; 
that  we  now  know  with  certainty  its  general  plan, 
the  materials  which  it  used,  and  the  order  which  it 
followed. 

Our  readers  will  not  be  surprised  to  hear  that  the 
opinion  is  amply  confirmed,  which  prevailed  without 
question  for  hundreds  of  years,  until  in  this  century  it 


THE    speaker's   COMMENTARY.  333 

first  occurred  to  any  one  to  doubt  it,  that  Tatian's 
work  was  called  '  Diatessaron '  because  it  was  based 
on  four  Gospels — the  same  four  that  we  venerate  now. 
It  is  well  in  every  controversy  to  know  what  admitted 
facts  there  are  which  neither  party  ventures  to  dispute. 
In  the  controversy  concerning  the  Gospels  it  has  not 
been  necessary  to  produce  any  testimony  later  than 
the  last  decade  of  the  second  century,  that  being  a 
period  of  which  the  Christian  remains  are  so  abundant 
that  there  is  no  room  for  debate  what  was  then  the 
opinion  of  the  Church.  On  this  point  Strauss  is  an 
unimpeachable  witness.      He  says  : — 

"  Thus  much  is  settled,  that  towards  the  end  of  the 
second  century  after  Christ  we  find  the  same  four  Gospels 
which  we  now  possess  recognised  in  the  Church,  and 
cited  numbers  of  times  by  the  three  prominent  Church 
teachers,  Irenseus  in  Gaul,  Clement  in  Alexandria,  and 
TertuUian  in  Carthage,  as  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  and 
disciples  of  the  Apostles  whose  names  they  bear.  It  is 
true  that  there  was  a  considerable  number  of  other  Gospels 
in  circulation.  There  was  a  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  and 
of  the  Egyptians,  of  Peter,  of  Eartholomew,  of  Thomas, 
of  Matthias,  nay,  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  which  were 
not  only  used  by  heretical  parties,  but  even  occasionally 
appealed  to  by  orthodox  Church  teachers.  Nevertheless, 
from  that  time  and  forward  these  four  were  regarded  as  the 
specially  trustworthy  foundations  of  Christian  faith.  If 
we  ask,  Why  only  these  four,  neither  more  nor  less  1 
Irenseus  supplies  the  answer." — Strauss,  Das  Leben  Jesu 
fiir  das  deutsche  Yolk  bearbeitet,  p.  47. 

Strauss  then  proceeds  to  quote  the  analogies  ad- 
duced by  Irenseus :  there  are  four  quarters  of  the 
world;  four  winds;  four  forms  of  the  cherubims, 
therefore  four  Gospels;  but  Strauss  fully  acknow- 
ledges that  these  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  the  reasons 


334  APPENDIX. 

why  Irenseus  accepted  four  Gospels,  neither  more 
nor  fewer,  but  only  as  the  way  in  which  he  justifies, 
in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  his  age,  a  belief 
formed  on  other  grounds.  It  is  plain  that  this 
consideration  pushes  back  the  testimony  of  Irenseus 
to  a  period  far  earlier  than  his  own  age.  For  what 
a  number  of  years  must  our  four  Gospels  have  been 
enthroned  in  a  position  of  pre-eminence,  out  of  reach 
of  rivalry  from  any  conflicting  record  of  our  Saviour's 
life,  ere  it  could  occur  to  any  one  to  regard  the 
fourfold  number  as  part  of  a  divine  scheme,  woven 
into  the  whole  constitution  of  the  world,  prefigured 
in  Old  Testament  manifestations,  and  followed  in 
the  whole  course  of  God's  revelations  to  man !  But 
we  have  now  direct  evidence  that  the  four  Gospels 
held  this  position  of  pre-eminence  in  the  generation 
anterior  to  Irenseus.  Some  persons,  perhaps,  might 
have  hoped  through  Tatian's  means  to  get  a  glimpse 
of  that  fifth  Gospel,  the  traces  of  which  the  author 
of  '  Supernatural  Keligion '  discovers  so  abundantly 
where  other  people  think  that  they  can  recognise 
quotations  from  our  four,  and  which  in  particular 
was  supposed  to  be  Justin's  chief  authority  for  the 
facts  of  our  Saviour's  life.  But  no ;  this  timid  and 
shrinking  Gospel  keeps  pertinaci6usly  out  of  sight, 
and  when  Tatian  sets  himself  to  digest  into  a  single 
narrative  the  Gospel  facts  which  he  has  learned 
from  various  sources,  it  is  only  our  four  which  he 
acknowledges  as  authorities  and  whose  narratives  he 
joins  together. 

It  is  of  course  implied  in  what  has  been  said 
that  the  fourth  Gospel  takes  its  due  place  with 
the  others  among  Tatian's  authorities.  It  had  been 
already   known    that    the   '  Diatessaron '    began   with 


THE    speaker's    COMMENTARY.  335 

St  John's  opening,  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word  " ; 
and  we  can  now  say  with  certainty  that  St  John's 
Gospel  was  with  tolerable  completeness  woven  into 
the  work.  Tatian  began  with  the  first  five  verses, 
adopting  the  punctuation  general  among  early 
Christian  writers.  "  Apart  from  Him  hath  been 
made  no  one  thing.  That  which  hath  been  made 
was  life  in  Him."  Then  followed,  according  to 
Moesinger's  summary,  St  Luke  i.,  then  Matt.  i. 
18-25  ;  then  St  Luke  ii.,  and  so  on.  St  Matthew's 
Gospel  seems  to  have  furnished  the  framework  of 
the  narrative,  and  the  selections  from  St  John  seem 
to  have  all  been  fitted  into  a  single  year  of  our 
Lord's  ministry,  the  discourse  with  Nicodemus,  for 
example,  being  placed  during  our  Lord's  last  resi- 
dence in  Jerusalem,  after  Matt.  xxi.   19-22. 

If  the  recovery  of  Tatian  disposes  of  one  con- 
troversy, it  is  easy  to  foresee  that  it  will  open  up 
several  others ;  and,  in  particular,  it  is  plain,  from 
Harnack's  review,  that  the  authority  of  Tatian  will 
be  used  to  cast  doubts  on  the  trustworthiness,  in 
certain  important  features,  of  the  ISTew  Testament 
text,  as  known  to  us  by  the  testimony  of  the  oldest 
uncials  and  of  third-century  citations.  It  is  obvious- 
ly unreasonable  to  attach  so  much  weight,  for  this 
purpose,  to  the  testimony  of  one  who  was  so  arbitrary 
in  his  mode  of  proceeding  as  Tatian,  from  the  very 
nature  of  his  work,  was  obliged  to  be,  when  his 
testimony  is  opposed  to  that  of  witnesses  who  had 
no  other  object  than  faithfully  to  reproduce  what 
had  been  handed  down  to  them.  Tatian,  for  in- 
stance, if  we  may  trust  the  silence  of  Ephraim  as 
sufficient  evidence,  not  only  makes  no  use  of  the 
disputed   verses    in    St    Mark,    nor    of   the    doubtful 


336  APPENDIX. 

clause  in  Luke  xxiv.  51,  but  not  even  of  St  Matthew 
xxviii.  16-20.  The  narrative  of  the  Ascension  is 
absent.  The  harmony  closes  with  St  John  xxi. 
19-22  and  Luke  xxiv.  49.  It  is  a  characteristic 
instance  of  hasty  German  criticism  that  Harnack 
should  see  in  this  an  evidence  for  the  early  date 
of  the  harmony.  Not  to  speak  of  a  multitude  of 
other  proofs,  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
sufficiently  shows  that  the  doctrine  "  He  ascended 
into  heaven "  was  part  of  the  belief  of  the  Church 
long  before  the  time  of  Tatian ;  and  no  stress  can 
be  laid  on  the  silence  of  one  who,  even  if  orthodox, 
was  not  bound  to  speak,  and  had  a  perfect  right 
to  close  his  work  when  he  did,  but  who  was  notori- 
ously under  the  influence  of  dogmatic  views  not 
those  of  Christians  in  general.  But  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  Tatian's  readings  will,  as  Harnack  admits, 
require  long  and  thorough  discussion,  and  we  can- 
not here  enter  upon  it. 

We  must  return  for  a  moment  to  the  work  which 
has  been  the  main  subject  of  this  article.  We  can 
only  refer  briefly  to  the  Commentary  of  our  English 
divines  on  the  sacred  text,  as  we  have  been  more  con- 
cerned to  draw  attention  to  the  general  importance  of 
these  two  volumes  in  relation  to  current  controversy, 
than  to  their  exegetical  details,  however  valuable.  But 
we  must  make  one  reference  to  this  branch  of  the 
subject,  in  order  to  tender  a  due  acknowledgment  to 
another  contributor,  of  whose  work  we  have  not  yet 
had  an  opportunity  of  speaking.  We  refer  to  the 
notes  of  the  Bishop  of  Chester  on  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  We  are  not  sure  that  they  are  not,  on  the 
whole,  the  very  best  notes  contained  in  these,  or  any 
previous,  volumes.     They  notice  every  question  of  any 


THE   SPEAKEk's    COMMENTARY.  337 

consequence,  and  in  point  of  learning  and  judgment 
they  are  of  the  highest  order.  In  addition  to  this, 
they  are  marked  by  the  valuable  characteristic  of  as 
much  condensation  as  is  compatible  with  clearness  :  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  in  them  a  superfluous  word, 
and  they  are  always  definite  and  to  the  point.  "We 
must  own  we  think  the  notes  to  the  text  of  St  Matthew 
and  St  Luke  are  not  so  satisfactory  as  the  rest  of  the 
volume ;  but,  as  has  been  mentioned,  Dean  Mansel 
died  before  completing  those  on  the  first  Gospel,  and 
the  Bishop  of  St  David's  had  to  plead  the  pressure  of 
episcopal  duties  for  failing  to  give  the  final  revision  to 
those  on  the  third.  But  Canon  Cook's  additions  and 
numerous  excursuses  supply  all  essential  necessities, 
and  his  own  work  on  St  Mark's  text  is  of  the  ex- 
cellence to  be  expected  of  him. 

We  deliberately  abstain  from  discussing  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  the  text  itself  has  been  dealt  with, 
since  this  topic,  again,  would  lead  us  into  too  many 
details  for  our  present  purpose.  But  we  will  venture 
to  express  our  satisfaction  that  Canon  Cook  has  him- 
self by  no  means  given  way  to  the  tendency,  which 
has  of  late  been  predominant,  to  attach  unique  and 
decisive  importance  to  the  evidence  of  the  great  Uncial 
MSS.  of  the  fourth  century.  Where  we  have  distinct 
evidence  that  a  writer  of  the  second  century  used  a 
text  which  differs  from  that  of  those  MSS.,  it  is  a 
little  arbitrary  to  override  his  testimony  by  that  of  a 
copyist  of  a  later  date.  The  most  interesting  point, 
perhaps,  in  respect  to  which  this  question  arises,  is 
that  of  the  authenticity  of  the  concluding  verses  of  St 
Mark's  Gospel.  Canon  Cook,  in  a  very  interesting  ex- 
cursus, vindicates  their  authenticity ;  and  his  arguments 
appear   to   us   decisive.      Briefly,  the   case  stands  as 

Y 


338  APPENDIX. 

follows.  The  form  which  includes  the  verses  has  in  its 
favour  testimony  which  proves  it  to  have  been  ac- 
cepted in  the  second  century.  The  form  which  omits 
the  verses  has  no  testimony  earlier  than  the  fourth. 
The  testimony  in  their  favour,  moreover,  is  Western, 
while  the  testimony  against  them  is  Eastern  ;  and  it 
is  generally  admitted  that  St  Mark's  Gospel  was  writ- 
ten for  Western  readers,  and  probably  for  readers  at 
Eome.  The  fact  that  there  is  no  authority  for  omitting 
the  verses,  earlier  than  that  of  Eusebius,  would  of  itself 
seem  decisive  in  their  favour.  Neither  Origen  nor 
any  other  writer  anterior  to  Eusebius  took  notice  that 
there  was  anything  abrupt  or  unusual  in  the  manner 
in  which  St  Mark's  Gospel  came  to  a  close.  In  short, 
as  Canon  Cook  concludes,  "  the  evidence  of  the  im- 
mense majority  of  MSS.,  of  ancient  versions,  of  early 
Eathers,  and  of  internal  structure,"  is  all  in  their 
favour  ;  while,  on  the  other  side,  there  is  practically 
the  single  authority  of  Eusebius.  In  this,  as  in  other 
instances  of  more  moment,  the  first  negative  conclu- 
sions of  foreign  criticism  are  being  steadily  checked. 
The  conclusion  at  which  Canon  Cook  arrived  is  ably 
supported  by  Keil,  in  his  Commentary  on  St  Mark, 
published  in  1879;  and  even  Hilgenf eld,  whose  ration- 
alistic position  we  have  noticed  above,  observes,  in  his 
'Einleitung'  (p.  513),  published  in  1875,  that  the 
concluding  verses,  "  to  which  testimony  is  borne  by 
Irenseus,  as  well  as  by  the  Italic  and  Peschito  versions, 
are  in  no  case  to  be  set  aside  offhand  as  unauthentic." 
On  the  whole,  the  English  Church  is  to  be  warmly 
congratulated  on  the  boon  which  has  in  these  volumes 
been  bestowed  upon  it  in  this  critical  juncture  of 
religious  thought.  Englishmen  desire,  in  the  first 
instance,  simply  to  be  informed  what  are  the  historic 


THE   speaker's    COMMENTARY.  339 

and  literary  facts  with  which  they  have  to  deal  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament.  They  will  not  in 
the  end  be  led  away  by  a  French  romancer  or  a 
German  theorist,  or  by  a  prejudiced  sceptic  in  this 
country,  if  only  they  are  assured  that  they  have  in 
their  hands  the  materials  for  judging  for  themselves 
of  the  facts  and  arguments  on  which  the  controversy 
turns.  That  opportunity  is  presented  to  them  in  these 
volumes,  and  it  is  to  this  characteristic  that  we  have 
been  chiefly  anxious  to  do  justice.  The  reader,  indeed, 
who  seeks  edification  rather  than  controversy  will  find 
it  abundantly  in  this  '  Commentary ' ;  but,  at  the  same 
time,  any  one  who  desires  to  enter  into  such  questions 
as  we  have  been  discussing  will  find  all  the  necessary 
materials  ready  to  his  hand,  and  able  and  impartial 
guides  to  direct  him  in  the  use  of  them.  The  number 
of  works  in  elucidation  of  the  Scriptures  which  have 
appeared  of  late  years  is  extraordinary,  alike  at  home 
and  abroad.  But  no  work  of  the  kind  has,  on  the 
whole,  been  so  satisfactory  as  the  '  Speaker's  Commen- 
tary,' and  the  present  instalment  of  it  deserves  the 
highest  praise. 


THE    END. 


PRINTED  BY  WILLIAM  BLACKWOOD  AND  SONS, 


RETURN  TO  Jt  ?^^  US£ 

"  "ESK  FROM  WHrru  „ 

LOANT  BORROWED 

^  «is  boolc  is  d 


''10>476'b 


-U 


r 


re  41187 


'371550 


^7~ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


